# The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.



## Billy_Bob (Jun 30, 2018)

A  friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if  true, could it cause catastrophic warming.  While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.

Lets go straight to the heart of AGW.. 

The premise is; energy absorbed by our atmosphere is re-emitted towards surface causing warming. The so called big player is CO2, that re-emits energy in a narrow band at 12-16um.

The problems come from several sources when it comes to energy transmission;

1.  The electrical state of the molecule.  Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state. In a positive state the molecule either reflects the energy or passes it. Each molecule also reacts differently to different wavelengths of energy. Not only does the molecule have to be in the right state it must also be in the range it is capable of reacting to.

2.  The time energy resides within the molecule. Water has a very long residency time while CO2 a very short one. CO2 will not warm unless it collides with a warmer object (conduction), where water will absorb and use the energy to warm. Absent another warmer object, CO2 passes energy rapidly and can not warm.

3.  The mass/mass conversion of energy.  A mass emitting at -80 Deg F can not warm a mass that is warmer. The mass, as a whole, will lose energy more slowly logarithmicly to its surroundings simply due to the increase of mass.

In order to discuss this, one must agree on basic items. First, we must agree that all matter emits energy in all directions above absolute zero (0 deg K). Second, we must agree on how differing energy excitements affect one another. (This is the one which is not settled.)  This is the crux of the AGW meme.  Depending on the outcome of this determines the failure of the hypothesis, specifically any multiplier of effect (sensitivity).

SO....  How do two molecules, of differing temperatures, affect each-other.  How does the energy emitted affect each molecule?

In my next post I will explain what I observe...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2018)

But but but but but the altered data, after heavily weighting the heat "trapped" in the oceans and the record rise in Arctic temperatures up to -22F, clearly shows back radiation,  er, or something


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 30, 2018)

Differing types of matter react differently to all forms of energy.

There are so many iterations to this I need to narrow the scope.

SO for the purpose of this post how does the energy emitted from CO2 affect the surface of the earth and atmosphere..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 30, 2018)

Energy Absorbed by CO2 is emitted in three bands. In the spectral emissions chart below you will note two very narrow bands and one small band in the 12-16um band. (note: narrow bandwidth indicates very low energy residency time as the energy has no time to cool before it is re-emitted)

The spectral intensity of the first two bands CO2 emits is so low they are inconsequential as they carry little energy.




 

What effect does EM energy (blackbody) have on other gasses? 

First we must determine wavelength, which will determine the energetic temperature. 16um = -80 Deg C.

How does energy emitted at -80 deg C warm anything? A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state. However, it is emitting energy at a much higher wavelength. When you apply energy, which is negative of the output energy you create a dampening state or cooling.

If you place a piece of steel in a chamber of CO2, at 1000ppm, heated to 400 deg F, its rate of cooling is unchanged from a chamber with no CO2.  Now add water vapor to that chamber and the time increases.  CO2 absent water vapor is a no go.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 30, 2018)

Think about this like a bowl of small marbles that is spinning. Now drop slower moving marbles into the bowl..  What happens to the marbles?

The movement of the faster ones will expel marbles throwing them off and/or it slows the unit as a whole.

If we look at sea water (grey body) the energy can not penetrate the skin layer. The water absorbs the energy at the skin layer, where evaporation is occurring at all temperatures above freezing, and the energy is thrown off.

In every occurrence, the energy fails to do as the AGW premise states and no multiplying effect is seen.

While energy is indeed being exchanged by all matter, there are factors which dampen or pass the energy having little or no effects.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 30, 2018)

@www.whosnotwinning.com

Ahhhhhh Billy....information matters nada to the religion. They'll come back with some half-baked bullcrap and do the pidgeon pooping on a chessboard march.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 30, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> @www.whosnotwinning.com
> 
> Ahhhhhh Billy....information matters nada to the religion. They'll come back with some half-baked bullcrap and do the pidgeon pooping on a chessboard march.


Its rather telling that none of our resident alarmist want to get into the actual mechanics of energy transfer and why we are seeing base line CO2 warming at 1/2 that lab LOG rate.  The dampening effect is one they didn't think about...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> A  friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if  true, could it cause catastrophic warming.  While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.
> 
> Lets go straight to the heart of AGW..
> 
> ...




*The premise is; energy absorbed by our atmosphere is re-emitted towards surface causing warming. *

Some is emitted toward the surface, some toward space, basically in all directions.

* Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state.*

Sounds like gibberish.

* In a positive state the molecule either reflects the energy or passes it.*

You have to explain what "negative state" and "positive state" mean.
Provide a link, please.
Because this just sounds like more stuff you invented.

* The mass/mass conversion of energy. *

Huh?

* A mass emitting at -80 Deg F can not warm a mass that is warmer. *

Can it cause the warmer mass to cool more slowly than otherwise?

*First, we must agree that all matter emits energy in all directions above absolute zero (0 deg K). *

Shhhh…..don't let SSDD hear you say that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Energy Absorbed by CO2 is emitted in three bands. In the spectral emissions chart below you will note two very narrow bands and one small band in the 12-16um band. (note: narrow bandwidth indicates very low energy residency time as the energy has no time to cool before it is re-emitted)
> 
> The spectral intensity of the first two bands CO2 emits is so low they are inconsequential as they carry little energy.
> 
> ...



*(note: narrow bandwidth indicates very low energy residency time as the energy has no time to cool before it is re-emitted)*

Energy can cool?

*16um = -80 Deg C.*​
You need to explain this claim more fully.
​*How does energy emitted at -80 deg C warm anything? *​
The same way any energy warms anything.
​* A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state. However, it is emitting energy at a much higher wavelength. *​
Higher wavelength than what? How do you know?​​*When you apply energy, which is negative of the output energy you create a dampening state or cooling.*​
Wow!!

So much gibberish.​


----------



## denmark (Jul 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Think about this like a bowl of small marbles that is spinning. Now drop slower moving marbles into the bowl..  What happens to the marbles?
> 
> The movement of the faster ones will expel marbles throwing them off and/or it slows the unit as a whole.
> 
> ...


You should submit your ideas to a scientific journal and see what responses you get!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Energy Absorbed by CO2 is emitted in three bands. In the spectral emissions chart below you will note two very narrow bands and one small band in the 12-16um band. (note: narrow bandwidth indicates very low energy residency time as the energy has no time to cool before it is re-emitted)
> ...


Introduction to Molecular Energy Transfer - 1st Edition

Enjoy!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Does this link contain your gibberish?
Is it a gibberish to science translator?
Negative states of energy?
Positive states of energy?

Just admit it, you were drunk when you posted that crap.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


He never said "Negative states of *energy*" !!!! He said "*Molecules *will only accept energy in a negative state." and you substituted Molecules with energy hoping to ridicule him.
What he called "positive" refers to the excitation of the electron orbitals, positive being at a higher excitation level:




It is also true that electrons which already are at a higher excitation level can not absorb absorb more energy of the same wavelength where that transition occurred. That can only happen after the energy was emitted and the orbital is again at a lower excitation level. If it were otherwise then the molar absorptivity of CO2 would change when you radiate it with more energy of the wavelength for that particular absorption band.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Because *you fail to grasp the concept* does not make it gibberish.

And I said the MOLECULE'S state not the energy's state.


----------



## IanC (Jul 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

Every object emits radiation if it is warmer than absolute zero, and loses energy. The highest rate of energy loss is when the environment is at 0 Kelvin, absolute zero.

There are many types of freezers. Ordinary ones at -20C, specimen freezers at -40C, and cooler ones for storing solid or liquid gases at -80C. the cooler the freezer, the more quickly objects placed in them will lose energy. You can actively heat something but cooling is a passive methodology controlled by internal conditions. The rate of cooling is proportional to the temperature of the environment accepting the energy loss from the object.

I say all objects are trying to shed energy as fast as they can, at all times. Likewise the environment is radiating towards the object. You say they restrict their radiation according to the environment, with the environment not being able to radiate towards the object and the object only being capable of a fraction of its maximum radiation.

A block of dry ice in the -80C freezer will radiate away (or absorb) energy until it reaches -80C. The radiation is now balanced between the freezer and block.

If you put the block of dry ice in the -40C freezer, it will accept radiation from the freezer and warm up, the freezer will cool down. The usual roles for object and environment are reversed.

I say there is only one special temperature; absolute zero. All other temperatures are relative to each other. Any temperature is warm or cold, depending on what it is being compared to. An object does not know if it is warm or cool. It only has a rate of energy loss (or gain) that depends on the rate at which the environment replaces the energy being lost by the object. The rate at which the object loses energy is controlled by the first S-B equation, and is happening ALL the time. The net loss is controlled by the the two variable S-B equation.

Don't worry, I don't expect you to make a reasoned response. You haven't done so in the last five years, why would you start now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



_He never said "Negative states of *energy*" !!!! He said "*Molecules *will only accept energy in a negative state."_ 

*A black body will indeed absorb the energy it receives as a black body is always in a negative state.* 

Energy in a negative state? You think that makes more sense? Okay, sure thing.

*you substituted Molecules with energy *

I did? Where? Link?

*hoping to ridicule him.*

Geez, how can you not ridicule his moronic gibberish? Did you ever 
see his claim that "covailent bonds" prevent matter from absorbing photons from cooler matter?
Something about EM fields actually repelling photons from cooler emitters.
It was the funniest damn thing I ever heard.

*What he called "positive" refers to the excitation of the electron orbitals, positive being at a higher excitation level:*

He should have mentioned orbitals then. At least now, thanks to you, he's heard of them.
So, as long as you're defending him, what does negative mean? An orbital below ground state?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Because you fail to grasp the concept does not make it gibberish.*

Explain your concept of  "the energy has no time to cool before it is re-emitted"

*And I said the MOLECULE'S state not the energy's state.*

Great. What is a molecule's "negative state of energy"?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SO.... How do two molecules, of differing temperatures, affect each-other. How does the energy emitted affect each molecule?


I'm sorry, I just don't understand how you think two molecules can each have different temperatures. It takes a large number of molecules to define the concept of temperature.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> "negative state of energy"


In quantum mechanics negative energy states refers to antiparticles. Would these be anti-molecules?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > "negative state of energy"
> ...



Now his gibberish (or should I say anti-gibberish?) all makes sense!!

Thanks!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.



What creates the "net" set up?


----------



## IanC (Jul 1, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.
> ...



for any point, there is energy contained, energy out and energy in. energy in or out describes the change of temperature. energy contained is the temperature.

if you what me to answer your questions, I hope you will be willing to answer mine


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Now his gibberish (or should I say anti-gibberish?) all makes sense!!
> ...



The energy released would cause runaway global warming.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.



So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yep...  all this is funny when you don't have a clue..

Tell me,  Can an excited CO2 molecule absorb energy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*Tell me, Can an excited CO2 molecule absorb energy? *

Yes.

Now, tell me more about "a black body in a negative state"


----------



## westwall (Jul 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...







True, but only within an extremely narrow wavelength if my memory doesn't fail me.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 2, 2018)

westwall said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 
Correct, it can. However, it must release energy equal to that it receives in that same narrow band.  

Molecules within black bodies are always in low or negative state, generally speaking, thus any energy they encounter, within the  receiving bandwidth, will be absorbed.

CO2 therefore can not build energy stores where a black body can.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.
> ...



What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on. *

Because radiation doesn't flow "in ONE direction from high to low".


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You are confused

*Clausius statement[edit]*
The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.[26] His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the _Clausius statement_:

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[27]

The statement by Clausius uses the concept of 'passage of heat'. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means 'net transfer of energy as heat', and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.

*Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, the refrigeration system.
*
_bolding mine
_
The total amount energy in a *closed system* never goes up, thus net transfer concept is meaningless as the difference between two systems of high and low vanish when transfer is completed.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2018)

The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Ian is quite sure that it happens via bad algebra...that is by imposing the distributive property to an already elegant equation which describes a one way gross flow of energy,  you can force energy to move from cool to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.



So then you can provide observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions?  Of course you can't...but you just had to speak up anyway didn't you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2018)

SSoDDumb, there is nobody on this board with a modicum of education that accepts your nonsense concerning radiation and energy. All you have is total ignoramuses like Silly Billy and his 'negative' energy agreeing with you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.




"So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body." DAFUQ???  Space at absolute zero is heating things?  really?? on what planet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



*The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.*

Great. Where did he discuss the movement of radiation between warmer bodies and cooler bodies?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2018)

Yes, my ship is without power, hopelessly adrift in the emptiness of space, but no worries, we getting all the heat we need from the -370F on the ship's hull


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.
> ...



*Space at absolute zero is heating things? *

Matter at absolute zero does not radiate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yes, my ship is without power, hopelessly adrift in the emptiness of space, but no worries, we getting all the heat we need from the -370F on the ship's hull


Frankie boi, you don't seem to be able to read even simple sentences with any degree of understanding. Specifically stated that matter at absolute zero does not radiate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Rigggggggggggggggggght, so the space touching the hull at -450F will warm the ship. What a comfort


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, my ship is without power, hopelessly adrift in the emptiness of space, but no worries, we getting all the heat we need from the -370F on the ship's hull
> ...



So kick it up a few degrees and explain how space at -450F will "warm" our ship


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, my ship is without power, hopelessly adrift in the emptiness of space, but no worries, we getting all the heat we need from the -370F on the ship's hull
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2018)

The battery in my cell phone was about dead and when I hooked it up to the charger, the dead battery provided power into the electric grid.  Maybe we all need to hook up our dead batteries to power up the electric grid when NYS decommissions Indian Point and causes black-outs and deaths throughout Westchester County and NYC


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



* so the space touching the hull at -450F will warm the ship*

Why do you feel that? Is the ship colder than -450F?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No the hull is warmer, for now.  Are you saying that the -450F space no longer warms the ship?  What happened?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*No the hull is warmer, for now.*

Well, in that case, even though photons from the -450F matter in space are hitting the hull, the larger number of photons being emitted by the warmer than -450F hull still result in cooling of the hull.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.
> ...


Well here it is. He finally said it:"So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body"
And as soon as you point out that if it was this cooler body which added energy to the warmer then the cooler body would have had to cool down even more. We all know that can`t happen, so they "explain" it by pointing out that the warmer body radiates at the same time towards the cooler one which is why both will equilibrate at equal temperatures but below the temperature the warmer one had at the start...which unfortunately means it did not gain any energy but lost it to the colder one. At that point they all over sudden resort to a 3rd energy source, the sun and deny they added energy to the warmer body by just using a cooler body. 
Heat energy in whatever form is expressed in work units. It takes work (=energy) to raise the temperature of a mass and the colder body can not perform this work. Which is why there is no way around that except using the 3rd source, the sun again while obfuscating the "added energy from the colder body" process.
That is accomplished by ignoring the mass of each of the 2 bodies which in the end is what they need to do in order to use the CO2 to "add energy" to Ew. On average air has a specific heat of 0.24 btu per degF *and per pound.* See how easy it was to do that CO2 and "energy adding" cheat by simply ignoring the mass ?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



When I first joined these conversations I thought SSDD was wrong, that surely there was a 2 way flow of energy from cooler to warmer.  If we could "color" the cooler energy, we'd see it evident in the warmer area. Just because.  Then it occurred to me that going from warmer to cooler is a natural state of the Universe, like darkness disappearing in the presence of light. The darkness does not make the light darker; the light transform the darkness, just because those are the rules here


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*When I first joined these conversations I thought SSDD was wrong,*

I'll pray for your recovery from your recent brain injury.

* If we could "color" the cooler energy, we'd see it evident in the warmer area. *

It is evident.
By the slower cooling of the warmer body.

*Then it occurred to me that going from warmer to cooler is a natural state of the Universe*

The natural state is everything emitting in every direction, all the time. 
Until you reach 0K.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



* He finally said it:"So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body"*

Do you feel that radiation from a cooler body is prohibited from hitting a warmer body?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2018)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


LOL  Yes, when a body radiates energy, it cools. And just what the fuck do you mean that a colder body cannot 'perform this work'? We are not talking of work, we are speaking of individual packets of energy, photons, that all bodies above absolute zero emit. And those photons don't give a damn whether they strike, and add energy, to a body warmer or cooler than the one that emitted that photon. Again, a cooler body can emit a photon that strikes a warmer body and adds energy to that body. Simple physical fact.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You say so, but that's like a bowling ball floating up to the ceiling when it's released cuz yannow it radiates in all directions


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*You say so,*

Science says so. Stefan-Boltzmann says so. Entropy says so. 

*but that's like a bowling ball floating up to the ceiling when it's released *

No, blackbody radiation is not like that. Not even a little.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The bowling ball is ignoring the call of gravity and radiating toward the lower gravitational field at the ceiling


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Matter isn't ignoring anything when it radiates in all directions. 
Even when it radiates toward something warmer.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 2, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> SSoDDumb, there is nobody on this board with a modicum of education that accepts your nonsense concerning radiation and energy. All you have is total ignoramuses like Silly Billy and his 'negative' energy agreeing with you.



Can't answer his simple question...…, again...…..

Then you are just blustering.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So some portion of the bowling ball is actually moving towards the ceiling? 50%? What portion?


----------



## polarbear (Jul 2, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...





Old Rocks said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Okay I`ll make it real simple for you OldRocks.
If you grab a hot potato in a kitchen sink the energy content in the sink is that of your hand and the potato.
Now you crank open the cold water faucet and you say the cold water "added energy" to the potato.
The only thing that got energy "added" was the kitchen sink, but not the potato.
The kitchen sink now holds the calories of the mass of water at x degrees + whatever cals the potato amounted to...but in no way was any energy added to the potato from the cold water...comprendre?


----------



## IanC (Jul 2, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I am sorry you are so easily confused. 

All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.

This conversation is mainly concerned with radiation. Radiation does not need matter to transport energy, only to produce it and to accept it. Unlike conduction and convection.

Therefore energy via radiation can, and does, travel in both (all) directions at the same time. Matter mediated energy transfer is only in one direction, at the level of the net competing energies.

SSDD thinks the temperature of the first object controls the production of radiation in the second object. And vice versa.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 2, 2018)

IanC said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!*

No Heat is NOT energy *itself* as shown here to help you out:

Heat shows up in boundary situations otherwise it is not called heat at all.

From Wikipedia is this easy to understand statement:

"n thermodynamics, *heat* is energy *transferred from one system to another as a result of thermal interactions*.[1] The amount of heat transferred in any process can be defined as the total amount of transferred energy excluding any macroscopic work that was done and any transfer of part of the object itself.[2][3][4][5][6] *When two systems with different temperatures are put in contact, heat flows spontaneously from the hotter to the colder system.* Transfer of energy as heat can occur through direct contact, through a barrier that is impermeable to matter (as in conduction), by radiation between separated bodies, by way of an intermediate fluid (as in convective circulation), or by a combination of these.[7][8][9] By contrast to work, heat involves the stochastic (random) motion of particles (such as atoms or molecules) that is equally distributed among all degrees of freedom, while work is confined to one or more specific degrees of freedom such as those of the center of mass."

_bolding mine_

Energy at rest shows NO heat at all, when it is being transferred it show up as heat, a simple concept you stumble over.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Nope.

*The “Black Body” Spectrum: a Hole in the Oven *
Any body at any temperature above absolute zero will radiate to some extent, the intensity and frequency distribution of the radiation depending on the detailed structure of the body.  To begin analyzing heat radiation, we need to be specific about the body doing the radiating:  t_he simplest possible case is an idealized body which is a perfect absorber, and therefore also (from the above argument) a perfect emitter. For obvious reasons, this is called a “*black body*”_.

But we need to check our ideas experimentally: so how do we construct a perfect absorber?  OK, nothing’s perfect, but in 1859 Kirchhoff had a good idea: a small hole in the side of a large box is an excellent absorber, since any radiation that goes through the hole bounces around inside, a lot getting absorbed on each bounce, and has little chance of ever getting out again.  So, we can do this _in reverse_: have an oven with a tiny hole in the side, and presumably the radiation coming out the hole is as good a representation of a perfect emitter as we’re going to find.  Kirchhoff challenged theorists and experimentalists to figure out and measure (respectively) the energy/frequency curve for this “cavity radiation”, as he called it (in German, of course: hohlraumstrahlung, where hohlraum means hollow room or cavity, strahlung is radiation).  _In fact, it was Kirchhoff’s challenge in 1859 that led directly to quantum theory forty years later!_

*What Was Observed: Two Laws *
The first quantitative conjecture based on experimental observation of hole radiation was:

*Stefan’s Law *(1879):






Black Body Radiation


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 2, 2018)

Lets see if confused people can absorb this better?

HEAT

"Heat is a transfer of thermal energy caused by a difference in temperature. This temperature difference is also called a temperature gradient. Since *heat* is a movement of energy, it is measured in the same units as energy: joules (J). It should also be noted that work and heat are closely related (see heat vs work for more information)."

_bolding mine_

Surely that should clear up your confusion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Thanks for the link. I liked this part.

_Transfer of energy as heat can occur through direct contact, through a barrier that is impermeable to matter (as in conduction), by radiation between separated bodies_

This picture was nice as well.





Wow! The Earth sends radiation back to the Sun.
And they mention "net amount".


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 2, 2018)

Now we learn what Energy is

"In physics, *energy* is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object.[note 1] Energy is a conserved quantity; the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed. The SI unit of energy is the joule, which is the energy transferred to an object by the work of moving it a distance of 1 metre against a force of 1 newton.

Common forms of energy include the kinetic energy of a moving object, the potential energy stored by an object's position in a force field (gravitational, electric or magnetic), the elastic energy stored by stretching solid objects, the chemical energy released when a fuel burns, the radiant energy carried by light, and the thermal energy due to an object's temperature."

Energy can be stored for later use, you can't do that with heat...…

Finally understand the difference?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> SSoDDumb, there is nobody on this board with a modicum of education that accepts your nonsense concerning radiation and energy. All you have is total ignoramuses like Silly Billy and his 'negative' energy agreeing with you.



So what you are saying is that no...you can't provide the first piece of observed measured data to support your beliefs...but maybe if you attack me, no one will notice that your claims remain unsupported by anything like actual observed measure evidence...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2018)

IanC said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Alas it is you who is confused ian.  You are confused at the most fundamental level and that error trickles up into, and pollutes your more complex ideas...

And again, it isn't what I think...it is what the physical law states.  Once again...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




...change the difference between T and Tc and P changes.  There is no expression for net within that equation.  Your notion that all matter radiates according to its temperature only applies if that matter happens to be a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...the fact that you can't admit your error on that basic fact pollutes every thing you have to say on the topic.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So then you can provide observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions? Of course you can't...but you just had to speak up anyway didn't you?



Are you still on that? Don't forget that the cold cosmic microwave background has penetrated our warm planet. That is "observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions"


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And again, it isn't what I think...it is what the physical law states. Once again...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That equation is totally compatible with net flow. Do you want to see the derivation of that again?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So then you can provide observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions? Of course you can't...but you just had to speak up anyway didn't you?
> ...



Go learn what a resonant radio frequency is and try and grasp that it is not IR radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Go learn what a resonant radio frequency is and try and grasp that it is not IR radiation.


The usual non-sequitur.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And again, it isn't what I think...it is what the physical law states. Once again...
> ...



You mean the derivation where you apply the distributive property to an already elegant equation?  Show me where that is a normal practice in mathematics...the fact is it is shitty mathematics and absolutely deplorable science...as if you could make energy go both ways by applying an inappropriate algebraic property to an equation that is reduced to its lowest terms.

Here...from the thought Co...a description of what the distributive property is and when you might need to use it.

"The distributive property law of numbers is a handy way of simplifying complex mathematical equations by breaking them down into smaller parts. It can be especially useful if you are struggling to understand algebra. "

Here is a clue for you...only a top shelf putz would consider it somehow beneficial to apply the distributive property to an already elegant equation...a real top shelf putz.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Go learn what a resonant radio frequency is and try and grasp that it is not IR radiation.
> ...



Let me guess...after all the discussion you still think a resonant radio frequency is IR radiation?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You mean the derivation where you apply the distributive property to an already elegant equation? Show me where that is a normal practice in mathematics...the fact is it is shitty mathematics and absolutely deplorable science...as if you could make energy go both ways by applying an inappropriate algebraic property to an equation that is reduced to its lowest terms.



Here is how it is derived.
For a substance at temperature T₁ and the background at temperature T₂.

Emission: Rₑ = eσT₁⁴

Absorption: Rₐ =eσT₂⁴

The net rate:

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = eσT₁⁴ - eσT₂⁴ = eσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

That is an elegant derivation.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Let me guess...after all the discussion you still think a resonant radio frequency is IR radiation?


I will break it down to six easy to understand steps for you. 

Radiation comes from a cold cosmic source at 2.7 degrees above absolute zero.


It penetrates to the earth surface at 300 degrees above absolute zero.


It then strikes a reflector at 300 degrees above absolute zero.


It focuses on a resonantly tuned amplifier at 4 degrees above absolute zero.


The resonant radio frequency is recorded at several frequencies.


It is seen to match the BB curve for the CMB at 2.7K


It was an observed, measured, repeatable experiment of radiation of a colder source hitting a warmer object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Go learn what a resonant radio frequency is*

Is that when a signal is detected on the Earth's surface without coming through our atmosphere?

Your photons just keep getting smarter....you keep getting dumber.

* and try and grasp that it is not IR radiation.*

Radiation can go from cool to warm as long as it isn't IR?
Or are you still confused about radio photons?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You mean the derivation where you apply the distributive property to an already elegant equation? Show me where that is a normal practice in mathematics...the fact is it is shitty mathematics and absolutely deplorable science...as if you could make energy go both ways by applying an inappropriate algebraic property to an equation that is reduced to its lowest terms.
> ...



sorry guy..not elegant and not complete...this is what it looks like when it is finished..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess...after all the discussion you still think a resonant radio frequency is IR radiation?
> ...



You still don't get it.. and no matter how you torture it a resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB.


----------



## IanC (Jul 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I had to check on who you were quoting. It looks like Tommy has been learning from SSDD on how to link up articles that support the opposition's case.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2018)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Dream on ian..the more you talk, the more obvious how little you know becomes.  Your whole belief system is polluted with your flawed understanding of the basics.


----------



## IanC (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



That equation is stating that the net power transferred between two objects is the power of object(1) minus the power of object(2).


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Still can't read a basic equation huh?  That equation says, and I quote " the power emitted by the radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant times its area times the difference between the temperatures to the 4th power of the object and its background"  

Any reference to "net" is derived entirely from your imagination since it does not come from that equation.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The word* NET* is their big problem since it doesn't fit in anything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*" the power emitted by the radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant times its area times the difference between the temperatures to the 4th power of the object and its background"*

You're lying.





Stefan-Boltzmann Law





Stefan-Boltzmann Law


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You on the smart photon bandwagon?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



God damn! I thought you were smarter than that. We are not discussing conduction, we are discussing energy in radiation. A photon does not care whether the source was warmer or colder than whatever it is that absorbs it's energy. If you cannot see this, then you should not be discussing this subject. No such thing as smart photons.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You need to ask some basic questions..

1. Can the mass receiving the energy respond to that wavelength? Can it do anything with the energy?  IF the answer is no, then I don't care how much energy you throw at it, in that wavelength, it will have no effect.

2.  Is the mass receiving the energy in a negative or ground state capable of absorption?

Its not so much hitting the mass as it is the mass being in a state it can use it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


* Can the mass receiving the energy respond to that wavelength? Can it do anything with the energy?*

Yes. Yes.

*Is the mass receiving the energy in a negative or ground state capable of absorption?*​
Please provide a link explaining "negative state".​​*Its not so much hitting the mass *​
It is that much, when discussing SSDD's claims that the cooler object is prohibited from emitting toward the warmer. And your claim that "covailent" bonds created an EM field that repels "cooler" photons.​


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You still don't get it.. and no matter how you torture it a resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB.


You are absolutely right. Each resonant radio frequency is not the actual CMB itself, it is an output of the detector's measurement of the CMB. Of course what we are talking about is how the CMB hit the warm earth and got to that instrument in the first place.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> sorry guy..not elegant and not complete...this is what it looks like when it is finished..



Ah. So you choose physics by elegance. But scientists think your idea of elegance is so passé. Try moving to a more modern idea of elegance that is now the rage among all scientists.

Emission: Rₑ = eσT₁⁴
Absorption: Rₐ =eσT₂⁴

Now that's what everyone considers elegant. So simple. You get two equations for the price of one. Of course you can dirty it up by making it easer to calculate.

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = eσT₁⁴ - eσT₂⁴ = eσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You still don't get it.. and no matter how you torture it a resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB.
> ...



It never did...a resonant radio frequency hit the instrument...this isn't that complicated...you, however turn it into pseudoscientific gobbldy goop trying to torture it into representing the impossible...that being energy moving from cool to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > sorry guy..not elegant and not complete...this is what it looks like when it is finished..
> ...



F'ing idiot...do you see how many times you are using the SB constant in that idiot equation?  Use your brain just for one second if that is possible....

And I am still waiting for you to show me either in a mathematical text, or a physics text where it is acceptable, and good math to apply an algebraic property to an equation that is already reduced....or to fail to reduce a equation that is clearly calling out for it for that matter.  Here is a hint goober, applying properties in an attempt to prove non physical energy movement is not acceptable in physics.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> The word* NET* is their big problem since it doesn't fit in anything.



Hell, look at wuwei..thinking that by adding on the distributive property to an equation, or failing to reduce an equation that is clearly calling out for it he can make energy flow from cool to warm...look at that ridiculous equation he posted...he ends up with 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  which is the correct form of the equation but thinks that because at one point he had this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 prior to completing the math, that somehow net energy flow must be true...  In doing so he completely ignores that his equation completely ignores the assumption in the SB law that T > Tc and they physical meaning of the application of the distributive property is completely missing.

then there is ian who likes to post this equation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  and claim that all matter emits all the time according to its temperature in spite of the fact that I took the time to correspond with several world class physicists who stated clearly that that particular equation referred to a perfect black body, perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum and if you introduce any other matter whatsoever, then you must switch over to this equation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .

 It is little wonder that they think what they do...they apparently can do the simple math but are completely unable to read and understand what the equations say...and if you point out what they equations say to one of them, he is perfectly willing do do shoddy math and apply an algebraic property to the equation without bothering to assign a physical meaning to the property he is applying...as if all math in physics does not attempt to describe physical reality and therefore require a physical meaning.

Even though neither are scientists, they both exemplify what is wrong with climate science..and the creeping decay happening in other fields as well.  Neither one understands that mathematics, in physics is a language, writing out sentences that attempt to describe physical reality...and if you alter the sentence, you alter the meaning of the statement the equation is making....in short, you make the equation describe a non physical reality.  And no matter how much you point this out, they simply won't accept that truth because the physical reality that the equations describe do not mesh with their non physical beliefs. 

And unfortunately, these basic mathematical facts are not described in physics texts because it is assumed that by the time you get to that level in math, you understand the fact that math is a language...describing physical phenomena and if you alter the math, you alter the description and turn it into a description of a non physical phenomenon.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It never did...a resonant radio frequency hit the instrument...this isn't that complicated...you, however turn it into pseudoscientific gobbldy goop trying to torture it into representing the impossible...that being energy moving from cool to warm.


Right, it isn't complicated, but it you are making it complicated by representing the impossible and turning a full black body spectrum into a "resonant radio frequency". Care to elaborate on how you think the BB continuum turns into a single frequency before it hits the atmosphere? or are you playing the troll again?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> F'ing idiot...do you see how many times you are using the SB constant in that idiot equation? Use your brain just for one second if that is possible....
> 
> And I am still waiting for you to show me either in a mathematical text, or a physics text where it is acceptable, and good math to apply an algebraic property to an equation that is already reduced....or to fail to reduce a equation that is clearly calling out for it for that matter. Here is a hint goober, applying properties in an attempt to prove non physical energy movement is not acceptable in physics.


Now you are defining physics laws in terms of how you think algebra should look. Scientists think of the physics first and then the algebra. We already showed you a physics text, it had this derivation of net energy:

Emission: Rₑ = eσT₁⁴
Absorption: Rₐ =eσT₂⁴
Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = eσT₁⁴ - eσT₂⁴ = eσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

All scientists understand that is the only way it can be, but trolls have their own idea of what might be called "smart photons" pseudo-science.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > F'ing idiot...do you see how many times you are using the SB constant in that idiot equation? Use your brain just for one second if that is possible....
> ...



There are a couple of things your idiot equation ignores, but I will point out the most glariing of them....The SB law assumes that T > Tc...in case you are unable to read that bit of math and apply it to the SB Law, it means that the SB law assumes that the temperature of the radiator is always greater than the temperature of its surroundings.  Your idiot equation allows you to set T to a temperature lower than that of Tc and therefore invalidate the equation..

Once again...math is a language and when you alter the math, you alter the statement it was intended to make.  You clearly aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you have to be pretty damned stupid not to grasp that.

And by the way, in case you didn't notice...the experession after the last equals sign in your equation is the very equation I have been pointing out all along that has no expression with which to derive net.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> There are a couple of things your idiot equation ignores, but I will point out the most glariing of them.



I told you many times it is Stefan's equation, not mine.



SSDD said:


> The SB law assumes that T > Tc...in case you are unable to read that bit of math and apply it to the SB Law, it means that the SB law assumes that the temperature of the radiator is always greater than the temperature of its surroundings. Your idiot equation allows you to set T to a temperature lower than that of Tc and therefore invalidate the equation..



Rₑ and Rₐ are both always positive. In some cases Rₑ can be greater than Rₐ and sometimes smaller. That corresponds to which temperature is greater.



SSDD said:


> Once again...math is a language and when you alter the math, you alter the statement it was intended to make.



A physics law or theorem expressed as math is a relationship between variables. That relationship is the essence of the underlying physics. That essence is not changed by algebraic manipulations.



SSDD said:


> And by the way, in case you didn't notice...the experession after the last equals sign in your equation is the very equation I have been pointing out all along that has no expression with which to derive net.



Since two positive numbers are subtracted in the last expression, it can be positive (emitting more energy than absorbing) or negative (absorbing more than it is emitting). The concept of net pervades many areas of physics (and finance).

You first have to define a direction that will be considered as positive, for forces, heat flow etc. If the net is negative in a particular case, the energy or force is going opposite to the defined direction.

The final term of the SB equation can be positive or negative indicating respectively that the energy flow is away from or toward the defined direction. The defined direction for heat flow is the outward surface normal.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2018)

There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....it doesn't exist out here in the real world as evidenced by your inability to show any observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm...and no..your example of a resonance radio frequency is not an example of anything other than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.  A common trait among the dupes who believe in AGW...it would have to be.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....it doesn't exist out here in the real world as evidenced by your inability to show any observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm...and no..your example of a resonance radio frequency is not an example of anything other than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.  A common trait among the dupes who believe in AGW...it would have to be.



*There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....*

_Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. _

His mind, Science Magazine, The Handbook of Modern Sensors. 

The only place where energy only moves one way is in your mind. Weird.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....it doesn't exist out here in the real world as evidenced by your inability to show any observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm...and no..your example of a resonance radio frequency is not an example of anything other than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.  A common trait among the dupes who believe in AGW...it would have to be.
> ...



Another mind experiment...and not the first actual measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...how completely unsurprising....yyyaaaaawwwwwnnnnnn


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Ummm….The Handbook of Modern Sensors did "mind experiments"? Sure.

It's sad that you're unable to come up with any back up for your "one way only" energy flows.
All the sources ever posted end up agreeing with two-way, none ever say one-way.
Why do you suppose that is the case?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2018)

Your inability to provide any observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement does back up my positon.  Either you can provide an actual measurement or you can't....and by now you have proven substantively that you can't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Your inability to provide any observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement does back up my positon.  Either you can provide an actual measurement or you can't....and by now you have proven substantively that you can't.



It's sad that you're unable to come up with any back up for your "one way only" energy flows.
All the sources ever posted end up agreeing with two-way, none ever say one-way.
Why do you suppose that is the case?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....it doesn't exist out here in the real world



According to the American Institute of Physics 14,200 PhD physicists graduated from 2002 to 2012 in the US.

According to an article from Physics Today, there are over 372,000 physicist worldwide. 

Why is this important? I tells us that 372,000 physicists totally disagree with SSDD's understanding of thermodynamics.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your inability to provide any observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy movement does back up my positon.  Either you can provide an actual measurement or you can't....and by now you have proven substantively that you can't.
> ...



Here is one written just for you...

Flowing from Hot to Cold: The Second Law of Thermodynamics - dummies

How Does Energy Flow?

In What Direction Does Energy Flow?

theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

Then there is the second law of thermodynamics itself...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 4, 2018)

WOW..

This thread has gone off the rails... The whole point of this thread was to show how EM energy passes through our atmosphere almost transparently.  Radiation by all matter will over power the CO2 ability to slow release because it can not hold energy and once it is excited it must release energy in order to take on more energy.

The SB law does not incorporate basic fluxes of energy and how they affect the mass they pass through. Is CO2 currently saturated with energy and thus transparent to further energy? Is this the reason that no hot spot exists?  The LOG interpretation suggest this. Then we give water a positive forcing due to the escaping energy but we forget conduction and convection which have given us the 1/2 of warming we expected to see from 120ppm (which is just about half of one doubling from 280ppm).

From the very beginning the premise was a failure because simple basic science was bastardized by models that do not replicate the system they were designed to imitate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Thanks for the links, which one specifically says radiation can't flow from cold matter to warmer matter?

Maybe you could just cut and paste the portion that backs your claim?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....it doesn't exist out here in the real world
> ...



You think that actually means something.  I can think of at least 6 instances in the past 20 years when I have been right and damned near every scientists on earth involved with the subject matter on earth was wrong.

I was right when I told my MD that my stomach ulcer was in no way caused by stress.

I was right when I told my MD that I would not begin taking statins because cholesterol did not cause heart disease

I was right when I told my MD that salt intake did not cause high blood pressure

I was right when I said that whole milk is better for you than 2% or skim

I was right when I said that natural oils and fats were better for you than hydrogenated oils.

And I was right when I took the arbitrary position against the consensus that quasicrystals did, in fact, exist.  If you bothered to look at the history of science you would find that in any slightly controversial scientific topic, if you go against the consensus, the odds are heavily in your favor that you will be right....and as science moves further away from the demand for actual empirical evidence in favor of models, those odds are only going to increase.​


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You think that actually means something. I can think of at least 6 instances in the past 20 years when I have been right and damned near every scientists on earth involved with the subject matter on earth was wrong.
> 
> I was right when I told my MD that my stomach ulcer was in no way caused by stress.
> 
> ...



For physicists to agree that photons can only flow one way between objects they would have to abandon direct evidence from the CMB, and work out a way for EM from the CMB to be just "resonance frequencies" that pass through the atmosphere (whatever that means since you never explained it) and not be black body radiation. 

They would have to abandon extremely basic concepts on black body radiation, and adopt the idea that radiation really can be completely stopped by a remote hotter object. 

They would have to abandon the idea that accelerating charges always radiate, and adopt the idea they will always stop radiating because of some external cause. 

They would have to adopt the idea that two objects at the same temperature would both totally stop radiating toward each other. 

Do you really think that can be achieved? 

It is so much more consistent to fulfill all the above by assuming that the SB law refers to two way radiation. No physics laws are violated by that assumption. 

You are basing your whole idea of abandoning the above physics on the interpretation of just one word, energy, in some wordings of the second law. 

In the phrase "energy spontaneously flows from hot to cold." Physicists interpret the word energy in that context to be either heat energy or net energy. 

Do you really think they would abandon that one interpretation and create a morass of difficulty in the rest of science?


----------



## IanC (Jul 4, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> This thread has gone off the rails... The whole point of this thread was to show how EM energy passes through our atmosphere almost transparently.



But radiation doesn't pass through transparently. While some IR bands escape quite freely, others are totally opaque for surface generated radiation.

The amount of IR leaving the planet is roughly 1/3 of the amount being produced at the surface.


----------



## IanC (Jul 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You think that actually means something. I can think of at least 6 instances in the past 20 years when I have been right and damned near every scientists on earth involved with the subject matter on earth was wrong.
> ...



All things radiate, all the time, according to their temperature.

Without an external energy source, every object cools quickly by radiation production and the energy that flys away. This is the natural, default condition. Everything is attempting to cool, because everything is producing radiation.

This cooling is most effective when no energy is being absorbed from outside sources. Going into a walk-in freezer is different than sunbathing on the beach. Why? 

SSDD does not accept that all objects radiate according to their temperature. He thinks an object is prohibited from radiating if a warmer object is nearby, AND the warmer object is only allowed to produce as much radiation as would have been calculated by subtracting the cool radiation from the warm radiation. eg. The Net Radiation.

How does all that radiation get stopped from coming into existence? Apparently we will have to wait until physics progresses. What about the decreased entropy? SSDD says it doesn't matter.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Let me guess...you think radiation is not energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> For physicists to agree that photons can only flow one way between objects they would have to abandon direct evidence from the CMB, and work out a way for EM from the CMB to be just "resonance frequencies" that pass through the atmosphere (whatever that means since you never explained it) and not be black body radiation.



You couldn't be more wrong...but hey, you are a dupe...what else could you be?  Go learn what a resonant radio frequency is and note that it is not microwave radiation.



Wuwei said:


> They would have to abandon extremely basic concepts on black body radiation, and adopt the idea that radiation really can be completely stopped by a remote hotter object.



Got any actual observe measured instance of energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler object.



Wuwei said:


> They would have to abandon the idea that accelerating charges always radiate, and adopt the idea they will always stop radiating because of some external cause.



Got any observed, measured evidence to the contrary?



Wuwei said:


> They would have to adopt the idea that two objects at the same temperature would both totally stop radiating toward each other.



Got any observed measured evidence to the contrary?



Wuwei said:


> Do you really think that can be achieved?



When you are wrong, you have to give up all the wrong ideas if you ever want to be right...all sorts of consensus beliefs have fallen by the wayside over the centuries as science advances...eventually those will also.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> All things radiate, all the time, according to their temperature.



sorry ian...only perfect black bodies, perfectly alone, in a perfect vacuum radiate according to their temperature.  Till you abandon that completely wrong idea, it will pollute every idea you have on the topic...and as a result, you will always be wrong...you are holding a position of faith...you have to believe because there isn't the first piece of actual evidence to support what you think.




IanC said:


> SSDD does not accept that all objects radiate according to their temperature.



And nether do the top shelf physicists who I took the time to email in order to give you an explanation.  The fact that you still believe even after those guys pointed out that I was right regarding those equations shows how blind your belief has made you to the truth.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 4, 2018)

Heat Transfer


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Let me guess, you think radiation only flows from warm to cold.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > All things radiate, all the time, according to their temperature.
> ...



Dimmer switch!!!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Radiation being energy...of course it only moves spontaneously from warm to cool...it isn't exempt from the 2nd law.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Your description not mine...I describe it as the reality that we see every time we look at measure.


----------



## jillian (Jul 4, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> A  friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if  true, could it cause catastrophic warming.  While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.
> 
> Lets go straight to the heart of AGW..
> 
> ...



Yes. 98% of climate scientists acknowledge a truth. And we should believe imbecilic uninformed lying trumploons?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2018)

jillian said:


> Yes. 98% if climate scientists acknowledge a truth. And we should believe imbecilic uninformed lying trumploons?



The fact that 98% of scientists (if you choose to believe that fraudulent number) acknowledge a thing doesn't mean a thing.  A few years ago 98% of scientists would have acknowledged that stress gives you stomach ulcers...or salt causes high blood pressure, or cholesterol causes heart disease... Guess what?  They were all wrong.

The fact is, jillian, if you take a close look at the history of science, you will find that the odds of being right are in your favor if you simply take the opposite side from the consensus.

And exactly what makes you think man made climate change is truth?  Can you provide a single piece of observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? ..Or maybe a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability?

My bet is that you can't provide either....that being the case...exactly what is this truth based on?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > For physicists to agree that photons can only flow one way between objects they would have to abandon direct evidence from the CMB, and work out a way for EM from the CMB to be just "resonance frequencies" that pass through the atmosphere (whatever that means since you never explained it) and not be black body radiation.
> ...


So you think over 372,000 physicists should abandon 150 years of physics progress to agree with you because they should wait for their 150 years of physics to fall by the wayside. Well, that shows you are driven wild because are afraid of the idea of back-radiation. I might ordinarily think that is amazing, but it is obvious you are just a troll doing a trolls work.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Won't be the first time they had to abandon a century or more of research...interesting that people will go to such lengths defending a belief that isn't based on the first piece of observed, measured evidence....well, maybe not...every sunday morning the churches are full of people who are exhibiting almost as much faith as you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Radiation being energy...of course it only moves spontaneously from warm to cool..*​
If only you had any backup for your interpretation. Ever.​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Your claim that matter reduces emissions based on surroundings is your description.

You alone. No backup, ever.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Won't be the first time they had to abandon a century or more of research...interesting that people will go to such lengths defending a belief that isn't based on the first piece of observed, measured evidence....well, maybe not...every sunday morning the churches are full of people who are exhibiting almost as much faith as you.



Faith? You are the one with faith. I and the 372,000 other scientists have evidenced confidence in the parts-per-billion accuracy of quantum mechanics. You have faith which is unevidenced belief, that accelerating charges will cease to radiate because of remote surroundings. You are a faithful member of the church of the Troll.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If only you had any backup for your interpretation. Ever.​



Gave you plenty already...and here's the thing...I am not "interpreting" anything.  It is you guys who are interpreting.  I accept the statement of the physical law at face value.  I am not adding anything to it..I am not taking anything away from it and not suggesting that it means anything other than what it says...you guys on the other hand are interpreting it to mean something entirely different from what it says.


"It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Again...not my description...simply what the SB law says about radiators in the vicinity of other matter.

According to this equation, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  , when you change either the temperature of T or Tc, P changes.  I accept this at face value...you guys, on the other hand attempt to claim that it says something other than what it says and when asked to actually say in english what it says, you either won't, because you know that it says something other than what you claim, or you simply add something to it that isn't there...or as in wuwei's case, you attempt to write it in a manner that completely ignores the SB law and allows you to set TC warmer than T.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Faith? You are the one with faith. I and the 372,000 other scientists have evidenced confidence in the parts-per-billion accuracy of quantum mechanics. You have faith which is unevidenced belief, that accelerating charges will cease to radiate because of remote surroundings. You are a faithful member of the church of the Troll.



Maybe you don't know what the word faith means...here, let me help you out.  Faith:  strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

I keep asking you for some observed measured evidence supporting your belief that spontaneous two way energy exchange happens...you can't provide it because it has never been observed.  Then when I point out to you that you are operating from a position of faith, you think pointing out how many other faithful there are changes belief into a position based on proof?

And no..I have every observation and measurement ever made...you have an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and a whole lot of other people who believe in the same model.  You know, maybe your problem is that you simply can't understand and comprehend what you read...you read the words, but are completely unable to understand the message that they are meant to convey.  Is it semi illiteracy that makes you do it or is it some sort of compulsion that requires you to alter the meaning of everything to something other than what it says?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If only you had any backup for your interpretation. Ever.​
> ...



*Gave you plenty already...*

Nope, not even once.

*and here's the thing...I am not "interpreting" anything. *

You are. You think the 2nd Law means radiation can't travel from cold matter to warmer matter. Unique.

You think matter, instead of emitting directly proportional to the 4th power of its temperature, acts like a dimmer switch. Even if the target it is emitting toward is billions of light years away. Again, unique.

* I accept the statement of the physical law at face value.  *

And you have no backup for your unique interpretation of "face value".

*It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *

And no one else is interpreting that to mean photons are magically restricted in their travels. Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I keep asking you for some observed measured evidence supporting your belief that spontaneous two way energy exchange happens.



Science has observed, measured, tested, quantitative experiments that accelerating charges always radiate. You have no evidence to the contrary. Your faith in your hypothesis that hot objects keep colder objects from radiating anything at all has no evidence to back it up. You lose. Science wins.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And you have no backup for your unique interpretation of "face value".



Yes, that is really a preposterous argument he has made over and over. You are right there is no basis for "face value" in science. No scientist would ever look at an equation or wording of a law and decline to understand exactly what the symbols or words meant according to the author stating the law. But of course SSDD doesn't understand the physical sciences.

Reading the laws as he does is very similar to evangelicals reading passages from the bible and taking every word on faith to be infallible proof of their particular desired interpretation.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You are. You think the 2nd Law means radiation can't travel from cold matter to warmer matter. Unique.



Only unique if you are the sort of idiot who thinks that radiation is not energy.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> And you have no backup for your unique interpretation of "face value".



Again...I am not interpreting anything...that is you.  And don't you think that if the second law meant something else, it would say something else?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> And no one else is interpreting that to mean photons are magically restricted in their travels. Weird.



What is so weird about that?  Electrons are restricted in their travels...all manner of things are restricted in their travels...what is so magical about one more thing being restricted...especially when the second law of thermodynamics says that they are?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I keep asking you for some observed measured evidence supporting your belief that spontaneous two way energy exchange happens.
> ...



Tested with instrumentation cooled to temperatures lower than the temperature of the radiator...one would expect energy to be moving from the radiator to the cooler instrument...,.again...not evidence of anything more than that you are easily fooled by instrumentations...ie a dupe.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > And you have no backup for your unique interpretation of "face value".
> ...



Don't you wack jobs have the intellectual wattage to ask yourself; "if the statement of the second law meant something else, then it would say something else?"

Alas it is you guys who are operating from faith..otherwise you could slap me down with actual observed, measured evidence supporting your claims rather than incessantly bleating  your mewling impotent cries that I am a heretic because I don't hold your faith and telling me about all the other people who hold the same faith...and make no mistake..it is faith.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You are. You think the 2nd Law means radiation can't travel from cold matter to warmer matter. Unique.
> ...



*Only unique if you are the sort of idiot who thinks that radiation is not energy.*

If it's not unique you must have dozens of reputable sources that back up your one way radiation claim.
So go ahead, post some up. Unless you're an idiot...….

*Again...I am not interpreting anything...*

Which is why your unique interpretation is unique.

*Electrons are restricted in their travels...all manner of things are restricted in their travels...what is so magical about one more thing being restricted...*

Because photons can't predict the future and measure temperatures across the universe. Weird.

*especially when the second law of thermodynamics says that they are?*

The 2nd Law says photons are restricted? Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You misunderstood. I'm not talking about heat, it's much more fundamental than that. Accelerated charges must always radiate EM energy. There are examples in synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung, the Larmor formula. 

Again science has observed, measured, tested, quantitative experiments that accelerating charges always radiate. Your faith says accelerated charge EM radiation can be inhibited. It simply can't.

But time after time you don't believe in science of the last 150 years, so I don't expect you to agree with electromagnetic radiation theory.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Don't you wack jobs have the intellectual wattage to ask yourself; "if the statement of the second law meant something else, then it would say something else?"
> 
> Alas it is you guys who are operating from faith..otherwise you could slap me down with actual observed, measured evidence supporting your claims rather than incessantly bleating your mewling impotent cries that I am a heretic because I don't hold your faith and telling me about all the other people who hold the same faith...and make no mistake..it is faith.



"Face  value" means nothing in physics. No, you don't understand the laws of physics. You don't even believe in them. You said that many times. Your only remaining recourse is to save face by maintaining a continuity of insults as trolls are accustomed to doing. That's sad.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You misunderstood. I'm not talking about heat, it's much more fundamental than that. Accelerated charges must always radiate EM energy. There are examples in synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung, the Larmor formula.



I didn't misunderstand anything...you only showed how easily you are fooled by instrumentation... congratulations


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> "Face  value" means nothing in physics.



Face value means something in language you idiot...if the second law meant something else, then it would say something else...it doesn't...it says that it isn't possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.  I accept that statement as it is written.  You don't...you find that in order to support your faith, you must attempt to interpret it to say something else.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I didn't misunderstand anything...you only showed how easily you are fooled by instrumentation... congratulations


Again you are saying the many scientists that discovered, analyzed and measured many different types of accelerating charges in many different types of experiments over the past 100 years were fooled? And the 372 thousand physicists who accept their findings are also fooled? Methinks you are the one fooling yourself.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > "Face  value" means nothing in physics.
> ...



You are also fooled by language too? What a sad hapless fellow you are. But, go ahead and lash out at the world, and get it out of your system, and you will feel better for it, although you will still be wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > "Face  value" means nothing in physics.
> ...



*if the second law meant something else, then it would say something else..*

Exactly. If it meant radiation, it would say radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Again you are saying the many scientists that discovered, analyzed and measured many different types of accelerating charges in many different types of experiments over the past 100 years were fooled? And the 372 thousand physicists who accept their findings are also fooled? Methinks you are the one fooling yourself.



I am sure that you would be unaware of the fact, but in classical theory...that would be theory supported by actual evidence as opposed to pure modelling, whether or not an accelerating charge necessarily radiates...once more, you are just a dupe..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are also fooled by language too? What a sad hapless fellow you are. But, go ahead and lash out at the world, and get it out of your system, and you will feel better for it, although you will still be wrong.



" It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object"

That is a pretty straight forward declarative sentence...it speaks in absolutes.  Do explain exactly what, in that statement suggests to you that there is some hidden meaning, or a suggestion that energy might move spontaneously from cool to warm...and tell me, are you under the impression like toddster that somehow photons aren't energy or are exempt from the second law?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are also fooled by language too? What a sad hapless fellow you are. But, go ahead and lash out at the world, and get it out of your system, and you will feel better for it, although you will still be wrong.
> ...



*"It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object"*

Excellent!! 
So that explains why my 70F walls can emit toward my 98F skin when I'm heating my home in the winter.

* are you under the impression like toddster that somehow photons aren't energy or are exempt from the second law?*

My walls didn't get up to 70F last December all by themselves, eh?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Excellent!!
> So that explains why my 70F walls can emit toward my 98F skin when I'm heating my home in the winter.



They don't...but I have no doubt whatsoever that you believe they do in spite of what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> My walls didn't get up to 70F last December all by themselves, eh?



Guess you never measured the temperature of the air emitting from your registers...not surprising...doesn't seem that you have ever checked anything...including what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 5, 2018)

So, does the equation to calculate heat loss take into account this magical cooler to warmer energy transfer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent!!
> ...



*They don't.*

Unless work is done. My furnace was workin' like a mutha.

*Guess you never measured the temperature of the air emitting from your registers.*

What would that reveal?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So, does the equation to calculate heat loss take into account this magical cooler to warmer energy transfer?



It does, it's called Stefan-Boltzmann.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So, does the equation to calculate heat loss take into account this magical cooler to warmer energy transfer?



They can't read the equation and state in plain English what it says.  The don't seem to grasp the fact that in order for an equation to express net, there has to be an expression within the equation that calculates net.  

And as to toddster….it is like talking to a 5 year old.  He offers up nothing in defense of his position and ignores the very statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as if it didn't say that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...as if one needed more support for a position that the statement of a physical law itself.  It is like talking to very stupid children.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 5, 2018)

I looked at the equation for heat loss and it's a gross number T1-T  for greater temperature minus lower temperature.  Where do you add back the imaginary  heat transferred from the cooler object back to the warmer one


----------



## SSDD (Jul 5, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I looked at the equation for heat loss and it's a gross number T1-T  for greater temperature minus lower temperature.  Where do you add back the imaginary  heat transferred from the cooler object back to the warmer one



It's magic.  It is interesting how these guys will just interpret a straight forward statement, or a simple equation to mean whatever they want it to mean as if that were acceptable science.  And then howl like zealots at anyone who doesn't join them in their faith.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I looked at the equation for heat loss and it's a gross number T1-T  for greater temperature minus lower temperature.  Where do you add back the imaginary  heat transferred from the cooler object back to the warmer one



_The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

What is Stefan-Boltzmann constant? - Definition from WhatIs.com_

Power emitted. Not heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I looked at the equation for heat loss and it's a gross number T1-T  for greater temperature minus lower temperature.  Where do you add back the imaginary  heat transferred from the cooler object back to the warmer one
> ...



It's interesting that you have no sources that back up your claims about one way flow of radiation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I looked at the equation for heat loss and it's a gross number T1-T  for greater temperature minus lower temperature.  Where do you add back the imaginary  heat transferred from the cooler object back to the warmer one
> ...



So does heat radiates from cooler to warm?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Plug in the temperature of the cool object.
That tells you how much it radiates.

Now plug in the temperature of the warm object.
That tells you how much it radiates.

You see, they both radiate at the same time.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Todd I want to talk to you about your beliefs that a

cold nitrogen bath
is a  heater.

And that the cold, light blocking refrigerants in the

cold nitrogen bath
are the magical core
of the cold nitrogen heater.

Having examined your Church's teachings, I already know you wish the cold, light blocking gases refrigerating the cold nitrogen bath conduction chilling the planet, called the GHGs, were a magical heater; and that their presence in the atmosphere "Dun made uh coald bathuh heedur yaW" .... to quote the official literature.

Have you any evidence in the history of all thermodynamics, in which application of a cold nitrogen bath pressurized to 14.whatever lbs/sq/in mean atmospheric pressure @ sea level is,
to a light warmed rock
resulted in the temperature of that rock rising 33 degrees
instead of LOWERING as per thermodynamical laws regarding temperature and energy concentration?

You need to show me one instance in all thermodynamics of application of a cold nitrogen bath to a rock, making the temperature of the rock rise. 

When you don't show me that you're going to be the desperately idiotic fake I'm telling everyone now I know you are, 
because you're in here claiming you think a cold nitrogen atmosphere, is a magical heater, being heated by the cold light blocking refrigerants responsible for chilling the surface of the Earth. 

Be prepared to defend that or you're gonna wish you could.

Now. 

You also believe the cold nitrogen bath's light blocking refrigerant class gases, 
are the magical core
of the cold nitrogen heater, 

being responsible for the cold nitrogen bath's temperature warming the planet 33 degrees.

 I already told you be ready to defend the "a cold nitrogen bath turned into a heater" claim.

Next you need to return here prepared to discuss your belief the cold light blocking refrigerant class GHGs,
are the core of the cold nitrogen heater, 
making the cold nitrogen bath, heat the planet 33 degrees. 

How are cold light blocking refrigerants, the REASON a cold nitrogen bath's a heater. Be ready to tell me that.

 You need to show me one instance of cold light blocking refrigerants added to an otherwise normal cold nitrogen bath, conduction chilling a light warmed rock, making the temperature of the object being chilled, suddenly rising "33 degrees warmer than if the cold light blocking nitrogen bath wasn't there."

That's your church's teaching so I want you to defend it so I don't laugh in your thermodynamically befuddled, hick face. And it needs to be crystal clear and obey Conservation of Energy to the last letter and significant digit. If you come here and you can't defend that, like I told you, you're gonna damned sure wish you could.

Next I'm going to show everyone here what a general purpose therm-0-billy incompetent HicK you are.

Tell me the name of the law written for solving temperatures of gases, hence atmospheres.

Write the equation of the law here and tell these readers what the letters of the equation stand for.

Tell these readers why the law was written and what it's known for doing, that makes the law so important.

Tell me what the parts of the law are.

Tell me what each part of the law does, that MAKES the law, MANDATORY for solving the temperatures of gases.

When you get done with those questions I'm going to have some more to ask you that are going to show everyone even more, what an insufferably stupid brainwashed fake and internet poseur you are,

and everybody in this thread is going to laugh like somebody passed around the nitrous, at the dentist's office. Well except you. You're gonna dread seeing me like I'm pulling all your teeth with no anesthetic.

We saved the laughing gas for ourselves, so we can enjoy watching you squirm like a single-digits I.Q. thermobilly hick who thought a

cold nitrogen bath
got
turned into a heater
because
cold light blocking
insulating refrigerants

were added.

I'll be back in a few hours you need to have these questions answered.

You need some fair warning so here are the other questions regarding the Law governing gas temps.

You need to return here prepared to talk about the section of the law you think assigns CO2 an internal energy constant equal to or higher than Earths. This as you know is called the "Specific Heat" of a gas, and you need to show me YOUR PERSONALLY FOUND CHART showing me CO2 having INTERNAL ENERGY
not LOWER
than AIR.

You are here telling people you think CO2 warms air. You need to show these readers a chart of thermodynamic law containing the Specific Heat for CO2 t
hat is higher than that of Air. 

Or you're gonna wish you could  when I start mocking you to your  face for being too stupid to even know what law of physics you thought you were talking about.

Next you need to be able to explain to me why you and your church

can't calculate the temperature of the planet properly. 

When you magic gas barking hicks claim to calculate the global temperature of our atmosphere you come up 33 degrees short and don't match the PROPER temperature, 

which is etched into the stone of international physical regulatory and calibration Law, in the form of the well known - well, it's well known to real mathematicians, physicists and chemists such as myself - 

International Standard Atmosphere.

Since you're so stupid you think a cold bath's a heater, you don't know what that is. 

Calculated in 1864 by the French the International Standard Atmosphere is at the source ultimately, of almost every single measurement made by mankind, that involves a manufactured instrument, 
motor, 
engine, 
aircraft or spacecraft part, 
oven, 
stove,
 light, - anything that can be regulated, or sold, or warrantied against liability has a system of known parameters
all certified within guaranteed 

Atmospheric temperature, composition, pressure, and humidity ranges.

You need to explain to me so everybody here isn't laughing in your illiterate, innumerate face
why your church leadership's CALCULATIONS don't MATCH the ACTUAL temperature of the Atmosphere.

We're still talking about the law of mathematics and physics governing this, shoe salesman. If you don't come here with proper answers everyone can agree on regarding something as simple as a cold bath and a light warmed rock, you're going to continue to bat zero questions properly answered by you.

Again: This planet's global Atmospheric temperature was first discovered by whom?

The modern well known temperature of our atmosphere, that  all our instruments are calibrated against,
so all our planes fly, and our submarines act properly, and our global commercial instruments all work,
who discovered the Atmosphere's temperature today?

And why is that important? What is the relationship of the modern temperature and the temperature of the atmosphere the first time someone actually calcualted it's temperature? I'm gonna wanna talk about that,
so be ready. This is all DIRECTLY related to the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS written for SOLVING the TEMPERATURE of the global Atmosphere.

Your church says a nitrogen bath is a heater, you need to show us all one in all of history.

Your church taught you cold light blocking refrigerants make a cold bath a heater.

Show me and everyone, one instance of
cold
light blocking,
insulating refrigerants, added to cold nitrogen baths,
making the cold nitrogen bath,turn into a heater.

You say the Earth is 33 degrees warmer due to GHGs
so it's important isn't it?

All those other elements of Earth Atmospheric global temperature I expect you to be able to discuss with me at length, fluently. 

I was reading along and of course the instant you claimed a cold nitrogen bath was a heater, and that the cold light blocking refrigerants 
chilling the bath 
and sun warmed rock the bath chills,
are the magical core of said cold nitrogen heater, 

and of course knew instantly you're utterly innumerate, utterly illiterate, and unable to even tell someone if a cold bath is a cooler or a heater.

When I come back you had better have some answers for me or I'm gonna drag you back and forth in front of these people like the stupid bovine hick you are. And you're gonna LOVE it.

Ciao, and I'll be back soon. Be prepared to discuss your claims, or I'm gonna discuss them for you.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Also my bad for posting up without editing, I'm watching TV and talking to my wife while jotting down a few things I'm gonna humiliate you so bad over, you're gonna think your mouse hand got paralyzed when you can't make it move over, grab that mouse, and just answer some questions about your dipstick teachings.

Hopefully you can read it now.

Even if you could, you're still too f***g stupid to answer,

but I need to let everyone know what I'm gonna be doing to you so. 

Ta-tah, stupid. I'll be back soon, and you better have some answers for me.

Or you're gonna be sorry you don't.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



What is more interesting is that the sources others provide (since you rarely provide anything more than droll one liners) don't agree with the second law of thermodynamics.  If they are correct and you by association, why has the statement of the second law of thermodynamics not been changed?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Actually I provided some above...and then there is always the second law of thermodynamics which states my position very explicitly.


Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Now if you believe that radiation is not energy.....or is somehow exempt because the second law doesn't explicitly name every sort of energy there is then go ahead and say it so we can proceed to laugh you right off the board...because it is clear that you believe that radiation is either not energy, or is somehow exempt from the second law which states clearly that energy can not flow spontaneously from cool to warm...and radiation is defined as energy emitted in particles or waves...radiation is energy and the second law covers all energy in any form....so tell us specifically what you believe radiation to be and how you believe it is exempt from the second law....go ahead...say it..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


But the formula states, e.g. 200F- 100F = 100F, it's all one way. There's no heat flowing upstream.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I am sure that you would be unaware of the fact, but in classical theory...that would be theory supported by actual evidence as opposed to pure modelling, whether or not an accelerating charge necessarily radiates...once more, you are just a dupe..


There are countless experiments that show that under a variety of different conditions of  accelerating charges, that they do radiate EM energy... yes, observed, measured, and quantified experiments that were done before the theory was conceived. The theory came later, first from Maxwell's equations classically and then in quantum mechanics. If this were not the case then all of science would fail. But of course you already think science has failed and you don't believe in it. Ask the 372 thousand physicists about it.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> " It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object"
> 
> That is a pretty straight forward declarative sentence...it speaks in absolutes. Do explain exactly what, in that statement suggests to you that there is some hidden meaning, or a suggestion that energy might move spontaneously from cool to warm...and tell me, are you under the impression like toddster that somehow photons aren't energy or are exempt from the second law?



The same old trite "face value" interpreting words out of context. I gave you a reference many times. The meaning isn't hidden. Read the hyperphysics site again for the explanation that 372 thousand physicists accept.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> They can't read the equation and state in plain English what it says. The don't seem to grasp the fact that in order for an equation to express net, there has to be an expression within the equation that calculates net.



The SB equation does express net. This is what 372 thousand scientists believe:

For a substance at temperature T₁ 
and the background at temperature T₂.

Emission: Rₑ = eσT₁⁴

Absorption: Rₐ =eσT₂⁴

The net rate of EM energy exchange:

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = eσT₁⁴ - eσT₂⁴ = eσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Also my bad for posting up without editing, I'm watching TV and talking to my wife while jotting down a few things I'm gonna humiliate you so bad over, you're gonna think your mouse hand got paralyzed when you can't make it move over, grab that mouse, and just answer some questions about your dipstick teachings.
> 
> Hopefully you can read it now.
> 
> ...


Your two posts were quite amusing. You shouldn't be talking to Tod. SSDD is much closer to your conversation level.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Also my bad for posting up without editing, I'm watching TV and talking to my wife while jotting down a few things I'm gonna humiliate you so bad over, you're gonna think your mouse hand got paralyzed when you can't make it move over, grab that mouse, and just answer some questions about your dipstick teachings.
> ...



Todd's a hick who thought a magical gaissiness dun turn't a cold nitrogen bath into a magical heedur.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Also my bad for posting up without editing, I'm watching TV and talking to my wife while jotting down a few things I'm gonna humiliate you so bad over, you're gonna think your mouse hand got paralyzed when you can't make it move over, grab that mouse, and just answer some questions about your dipstick teachings.
> ...




Glancing back it seems you believe "magical gaissiness dun made a cold bath a HeeDur."

Do you want to answer for your magic gas barking friend who's gone mute?

Tell everyone reading about your church;
 and how they convinced you a cold nitrogen bath is a heater

and that putting insulation between a light and a rock
so
every time more insulation
makes the rock get less light warming it,
sensors indicate more light warming it.

Whenever you grow the guts to mention your church to me

you start barking, therm-0-billy fraud, you do that. I'm talking to you right now and I said your whole church is fake and that not a single word of it's true, and that I can prove how stupid you are for believing it possibly could have been.

If you'd have had the guts, you would have talked about your church. Instead, you thought you'd try to establish some political dominance by telling me who I should talk to.

I'm talking to you right now, stupid. Answer for your friend who has locked up like the public school educated underperformer he is. Tell us about your church's teachings, with me here.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 6, 2018)

The sun is 99.9% of the source, it stands to reason that the planet are warmed by it. Absorbing that SOLAR inflow doesn't mean CO2, N2 and other materials on the planet have become secondary heating sources, they can NOT be because it was *originated* from the sun, therefore they absorb and emit and that is all, no new energy is introduced outside of Solar energy inflow.

back radiation is NOT a heat source!

N2 is NOT a heat source!

CO2 is NOT a heat source!

No secondary heating source by absorbing solar rays!

The Sun is the only source of energy, the rest gets warmed up _because_ of it.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

We're all waiting breath abate for one of you therm-0-billy "a cold bath's a heater" barkers

to proselyte the readers with stirring tales about how

more insulation
between a fire and rock
making less light warm the rock
makes sensors show
more light warming the rock.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> The sun is 99.9% of the source, it stands to reason that the planet are warmed by it. Absorbing that SOLAR inflow doesn't mean CO2, N2 and other materials on the planet have become secondary heating sources, they can NOT be because it was *originated* from the sun, therefore they absorb and emit and that is all, no new energy is introduced outside of Solar energy inflow.
> 
> back radiation is NOT a heat source!
> 
> ...



I understand the point you are trying to get across. And I agree.

That still leaves the conundrum of how the surface radiates at roughly 400w/m^2 when the solar insolation is less than that.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Hahaha. Another pompous fool who breaks into the conversation thinking he has all the answers but doesn't even know what the questions are.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



You've got the intellect of a man who believed people when they told you that a cold nitrogen bath is a heater. 

And that the cold light blocking refrigerants lacing the cold nitrogen bath, reducing temperature of the entire planet 22% before the conduction cooling they do even starts, are the magical core 

of the cold nitrogen bath that's a heater. 

Actually simpleton my first career was as a working biological, environmental & atmospheric chemist,

 and my degree's in Radiation Communications Electronic Engineering: creating, modifying, transmitting, capturing, separating, analyzing and disposing of radiation energy 
through the atmosphere, 
the vacuum of space, 
and the industrial chemistry forming the electronics required to sustain the radiation based space age my friends and I are flying over your befuddled head.

YOU sell shoes at a mall.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > The sun is 99.9% of the source, it stands to reason that the planet are warmed by it. Absorbing that SOLAR inflow doesn't mean CO2, N2 and other materials on the planet have become secondary heating sources, they can NOT be because it was *originated* from the sun, therefore they absorb and emit and that is all, no new energy is introduced outside of Solar energy inflow.
> ...



It certainly isn't the cold nitrogen bath, 
or the cold light blocking refrigerants taking nearly 25% of the Earth's temperature right off the top before the cold conduction cooling begins. 

Apparently you think a cold nitrogen bath is making a planet emit more energy than the sun feeds it. 

Yeah that makes a lot of sense, fluffy. The cold nitrogen bath is what's making the planet "emit more energy than is going into it." 

Yeah a LOT of things EMIT more ENERGY than is coming INTO them.

NOT. That's called "Conservation of Energy" mocking you for being so insufferably ignorant. 

"Thuh cold nitchurjin bath dun had moar enurgie comin owt uv it, than wuzza goin in!!!" 

Just 
f***g
PLEaZe.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> You've got the intellect of a man who believed people when they told you that a cold nitrogen bath is a heater.
> 
> And that the cold light blocking refrigerants lacing the cold nitrogen bath, reducing temperature of the entire planet 22% before the conduction cooling they do even starts, are the magical core
> 
> ...



Another internet poser, hahaha.

The atmosphere is like a battery, that stores and releases energy according to the conditions. 

GHGs are one of the pathways to add energy to the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is not simply a heater, or a cooler. It is a reservoir of energy.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Where do you people go to "school"?

Oh that's right, where the average "graduate" leaves the place 30% behind home-schooled, dino-riding Xtian fundie kids in the Missouri Ozarks, teaching themselves the 3rs at their mom and dad's pine board table.

In every single educational metric ever devised by your programmers to hide from you
how insufferably stupid you were when you left the propagandization camps after 12 years.

30% behind home schooled Ozarks fundie kids
in EVERY single EDUCATIONAL METRIC ever DEVISED
to not make you public school zombies look so stupid.

Didn't any of you people think to yourself "I wonder if that's  a sign my math aint right when I'm showing MORE LIGHT COMING OUT than is GOING IN..."

IANC tell me the name of the law of thermodynamics governing the temperature of gases, hence the atmosphere. 

Tell me where you thought there is a chart of law on this planet showing CO2 having an internal energy as high as Air's. Your church leaders

the men who told you a COLD NITROGEN BATH is a MAGICAL HEATER,
and who told you the COLD light blocking REFRIGERANTS, knocking almost a full quarter of sunlight off the TOP,
are making a
COLD NITROGEN BATH
WARM a sun-warmed rock, 33 DEGREES
when the BATH is many degrees COLDER than the rock,

those men also told you a rickety Unix Hockey Stick generator was "Uh Hoal new field uh mayuth YaW, clymitt mayuth!"

You BELIEVED this?

When these people told you a COLD NITROGEN BATH
is making a ROCK it's cooling
GIVE OFF MORE ENERGY than is GOING INTO IT

you BELIEVED this?

Hey: tell me the name of the law of physics governing the temperatures of gases and Atmospheres.

Write down the equation of the Law here and show me the factor of the law you think

makes a cold nitrogen bath,

a heater.

I'll wait, you keep wiping sweat off your hands and face and neck, and fidget.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > You've got the intellect of a man who believed people when they told you that a cold nitrogen bath is a heater.
> ...




The ATMOSPHERE is a COLD, 

LIGHT-BLOCKING 

NITROGEN BATH. 

It's COOLING GHGs take 22% of the temperature of the planet 

OFF the TOP of global atmospheric temperature calculations,

before ANY OTHER MATHEMATICS can PROCEED. 

WHO told you,
a COLD NITROGEN BATH,
with light blocking refrigerants in it, 

is WARMING the (less) light-warmed ROCK it's conduction chilling? 

What's that person's NAME?


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



The earth/atmosphere system receives an average of 340w/m^2 from the Sun. 100w of solar insolation is reflected at various levels. The remaining 240w is absorbed (at different levels) and that solar insolation is converted to IR. 240w of IR leave the system. 

That leaves the problem of how the surface is radiating at the average rate of 400w. I know the answer. Do you?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Wrong answer, stupid. The light that never reaches the surface of the planet is nearly all refracted to space. THAT'S WHY EVERY SINGLE WATT THEY STOP from REACHING the SURFACE is TAKEN off the TOP of the EARTH'S TEMPERATURE CALCULATION before ANY OTHER PROCESSING takes PLACE.

As far as your Quack claim the Earth is emitting more energy than the sun provides and the Earth augments,

that's called "you were so stupid you thought a cold nitrogen bath chilling a warm rock, was violating Conservation of Energy."

Of course if you think you want to claim the Earth's generator is contributing more that's fine:

but you're a stupid as you've already had me show you to be

when you think you're gonna sit there and tell me a cold nitrogen bath, made the light warmed rock it MADE less light WARM
while it was CONDUCTION CHILLING IT

made MORE light leave the ROCK
it was making LESS light GET to
before it CONDUCTION CHILLED IT many more DEGREES.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



The atmosphere is WARM compared to space.

Greenhouse gases absorb more energy close to the surface than they release at higher altitude.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Soon, we're gonna get to the point of cracking a book! O


IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Space doesn't HAVE a temperature, dipstick. It's a vacuum. In space, space suits don't have HEATERS they have COOLERS because there's only ONE mode of COOLING: RADIANT. 

Objects cooling via RADIANT means only in vacuum are the HIGHEST their temperature can be
because there are no other MODES to REMOVE the ENERGY. 

The atmosphere is COLD compared to the PLANET 
it is CONDUCTION CHILLING
as a
COLD NITROGEN BATH laced with COOLING GHG REFRIGERANTS, 
which
COOL the planet before the light ever REACHES Earth, 
KNOCKING DOWN it's TEMPERATURE, 22% before ANY other temperature processing is done.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> As far as your Quack claim the Earth is emitting more energy than the sun provides and the Earth augments,



I specifically pointed out how the solar insolation and the terrestrial output matched exactly.

In reality, the Earth/atmosphere system can be out of balance slightly. This would cause warming or cooling. Bonus points for people who know where the energy is attained to cause warming.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Mein Gaia you magic gas barking hicks are the stupidest thing since those pot warriors. 

POT is DEVIL WEED is ANOTHER of your church's insipid doctrines, STILL on the lawbooks TODAY.

Since 1937 when Democrats made pot illegal so the Democrats in the KLAN could 
rob,
ruin,
and murder black and brown people, 

"consurn'd minn frum prestijus Re surch Yewnuversatees, has dun got the critickal signtifick PEER REVEW, to PRUVE
two YEW that POTS like HEROIN!" 

Pruve it in COART frum thim yewnuversatee studies, sayin 
we awl gotta git on thim opioids
and git evurbodie off thim pots, 
cause thim pots might make somebody get on opioids,
so we gotta AWL get on OPIOIDS
so POT doant make us awl GIT on OPIOIDS! YaW!"

Now they've sent your stupid a#$e$ to tell the world a "MAGICAL GAISSINESS has dun MADE a COLD BATH into a MAGICAL BATTERY HEEDUR WHAT DON'T GIT STUFF COOL like awl thim UTHUR nitrogin baths' what's coald, 

but it dun made the ROCK it was conduction chilling, 33 degrees WARMER. 

The COLD light blocking REFRIGERANTS, that made the planet 22% COOLER 
MAGICALLY make that 22% RE-APPEAR
and THEN the entire COLD nitrogen BATH gets 33 degrees WARMER. 

The ROCK that got 22% LESS light, due to more insulation
is MAGICALLY giving that 22% back off ANYWAY - though it never ARRIVED
and THEN
these SAME tiny quantities of trace gases having generated 22% of the entire energy of the sun
out of NOTHING
generate even MORE 
PHANTOM ENERGY by warming the ENTIRE bath another 33 degrees. 

To YOUR stupid A#$ that SOUNDS like a COMPLETELY 
ROCK SOLID story. 

To ALL of you in here barking about how that'TaiR magical gaissiness dun... BACKERDISTICALLY told CONSERVATION of ENERGY to KISS it's INFRARED SPARKLIN A@#$.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> There are countless experiments that show that under a variety of different conditions of  accelerating charges, that they do radiate EM energy... yes, observed, measured, and quantified experiments that were done before the theory was conceived. The theory came later, first from Maxwell's equations classically and then in quantum mechanics. If this were not the case then all of science would fail. But of course you already think science has failed and you don't believe in it. Ask the 372 thousand physicists about it.



First, they are hardly countless.  Exaggerating hardly lends you credibility.  Second, the instrumentation in those experiments was invariably cooled.  One would expect to see warmer materials radiating towards cooler instruments every time it is done.  

And again...if those experiments demonstrated that the second law of thermodynamics was wrong in its statement that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm, don't you think that they would have prompted a change in the law itself?...rather than leaving goobs like you to try and whine your way into making people believe that the 2nd law, as stated is incorrect?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > As far as your Quack claim the Earth is emitting more energy than the sun provides and the Earth augments,
> ...



Whenever you started talking about the Atmosphere being "a magical battery warming the rock" it's chilling, your reputation for knowing what you're talking about to me was DONE. 

DO YOU or DO YOU NOT know the name of the law of thermodynamics written as the only law 
in ALL thermodynamics for solving temperatures of gases?


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Space doesn't HAVE a temperature, dipstick. It's a vacuum. In space, space suits don't have HEATERS they have COOLERS because there's only ONE mode of COOLING: RADIANT.
> 
> Objects cooling via RADIANT means only in vacuum are the HIGHEST their temperature can be
> because there are no other MODES to REMOVE the ENERGY.
> ...




You make a big noisy point about radiation being the only way to cool the system, then you claim conduction chilling! Make up your mind.

The planet's surface is in the middle of the energy pathway from sun to earth to space. The middle can have any number of different temperatures, depending on how much energy has been stored. Only the input and output must balance.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Utter, COMPLETE, law-violating BUNK. 

Green House Gases refract away to space 22% OF TOTAL otherwise available warming SUNLIGHT. 

Before it ever ARRIVES the GHGs have ENSURED it never DOES. 

The VOLUME of SUNLIGHT INFRARED IS PRODIGIOUS. 

It DWARFS ALL EARTH'S OUTPUT * in EVERY SINGLE SPECTRUM the EARTH'S LIMITED EMISSIONS allow comparison in. 

You have no CLUE what you are saying. NOTHING you wrote was correct.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > " It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object"
> ...



Hey...two words in one sentence that you don't know the meaning of...first, I am not interpreting anything.  Interpreting would mean that I don't accept the meaning of the statement as it is written and am attempting to claim that it says something other than what it says.  The statement of the second law is concise and explicit...it needs no interpretation and yet, you find that you must in order to try and make it jibe with your beliefs.

And context...the word itself describes words that come before or after a point which contribute to its full meaning.  Since I provided the statement of the 2nd law in its entirety, I provided it in its full and correct context...you are suggesting that the opinion provided by some unknown 3rd party regarding his belief on the 2nd law is required in order to give the full meaning of the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself?  Bullshit..   The 2nd law says exactly what it means and requires no interpretation or additional "embellishment"  When it is found to be wrong it will be revised to reflect the new evidence.

And again, telling me how many other people join you in your faith is meaningless. At present, there are something like 2.2 BILLION Christians in the world.  Do you accept their teaching and belief as infallible and believe every word of it because there are so many?  I would suggest that they have a better case for their beliefs than you have for the idea that energy flows spontaneously from cool to warm.  Their beliefs are based on "eye witness" accounts...your beliefs are based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

 This is science we are talking about...when you have actual observed, measured evidence which demonstrates spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm...or from a less organized to a more organized state, by all means bring it here because I, for one, would be most interested in seeing it.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Whenever you started talking about the Atmosphere being "a magical battery warming the rock" it's chilling, your reputation for knowing what you're talking about to me was DONE.



Are you implying that the surface would be warmer (on average) without an atmosphere? Hahaha

Bonus points to anyone who can give the simple mathematical reason why an atmosphere increases the average surface temperature.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Space doesn't HAVE a temperature, dipstick. It's a vacuum. In space, space suits don't have HEATERS they have COOLERS because there's only ONE mode of COOLING: RADIANT.
> ...



WHAT in the BLANK, do YOU think you just said? Are you out of high school? WtF is WRONG with you? 

The PLANET'S ATMOSPHERE is a COLD, NITROGEN BATH, CONDUCTION SCRUBBING the PLANET

it stops 22% of TOTAL otherwise available warming sunlight SPECTRA from ever WARMING. 

THEN the CONDUCTION cooling starts. 

This Earth-Atmosphere complex TOGETHER radiate the energy left after the COOLING GREEN HOUSE GASES

DROP global temperature 22% before any other calculations can even be ATTEMPTED. 

In acting as a CHILLING CONDUCTION BATH
augmented FIRST by the cooling GHG's removal of 22% of temp off the TOP

then by the  
PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERATION COOLING of not just the SURFACE but the ENTIRE NITROGEN BATH
by the
COOLING
Green House Gases. 

It's patently obvious why you're in here trying to tell everyone a cold nitrogen bath became a magic heater,

because the COOLING REFRIGERANTS knocking 22% off the top, 
are 
OUT of NOWHERE
generating the 22% they refracted to SPACE never to WARM Earth's physical systems, 
hence being taken ENTIRELY from calculation of temperature, 
as the VERY first STEP to global atmospheric temperature calculation

you're so illiterate and innumerate it doesn't even strike you as odd that the

22% cooling by making sunlight go to space

is MAGICALLY made up so temperature is "as if thay warn't evun thair no moar"

and that THEN these SAME devilish, and magical gaissinesses, 

dun.. made the WHOLE nitrogen BATH, 33 DEGREES WARMER
than if 

yew know, "thay warnt evun thair. Yaw."


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > There are countless experiments that show that under a variety of different conditions of  accelerating charges, that they do radiate EM energy... yes, observed, measured, and quantified experiments that were done before the theory was conceived. The theory came later, first from Maxwell's equations classically and then in quantum mechanics. If this were not the case then all of science would fail. But of course you already think science has failed and you don't believe in it. Ask the 372 thousand physicists about it.
> ...


I'm not talking about thermodynamics. It's about accelerating charges radiating Read the post again.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Whenever you started talking about the Atmosphere being "a magical battery warming the rock" it's chilling, your reputation for knowing what you're talking about to me was DONE.
> ...



You ignorant hick. Show these people ONE instance in ALL thermodynamics when a COLD BATH
made ONE object it was
CONDUCTION CHILLING
warmer. 

Yes,THERM-0-BILLY I TOLD YOU THERE'S NO SUCH THING as a COLD BATH that's a HEATER. 

When RADIATION is the SOLE MODE of ENERGY LOSS
TEMPERATURES are by DEFINITION the HIGHEST they can ever BE with the same LIGHT load. 

That's why they have the CHILDREN'S MIDDLE SCHOOL EXPERIMENT 
where the KID puts the THERMOMETER in a JAR
and SUCKS AIR OUT with a STRAW she STUCK into a hole drilled in the lid 
and SEALED with CHEWING GUM

and the TEMPERATURE starts to IMMEDIATELY RISE.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> The VOLUME of SUNLIGHT INFRARED IS PRODIGIOUS




Close to the Sun's surface there is a lot of IR. By the time it gets to the Earth, it is less than one watt per metre squared. Hardly prodigious.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



RADIATION IS THERMODYNAMICS. What in the WORLD makes you people say these CRACKPOT statements? 

ALL energy and MATTER comprise the physical events GOVERNED by THERMODYNAMICS.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > They can't read the equation and state in plain English what it says. The don't seem to grasp the fact that in order for an equation to express net, there has to be an expression within the equation that calculates net.
> ...



Showing me an unfinished equation hardly supports your argument.  Do you see the equation after the last equals sign....e sigma (T^4 - Tc^4)?  That is the finished eauation...and it doesn't state net anything...it describes a gross one way energy flow...you can right net as much as you like, but the final equation after all the equals signs is what matters and it doesn't calculate net anything.. Your math skills, and understanding of math is laughable...


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> you are suggesting that the opinion provided by some unknown 3rd party regarding his belief on the 2nd law is required in order to give the full meaning of the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself?


Nope. That is just one source out of many that says the "energy" in the second law is net energy. That is agreed by 372000 physicists. Maybe you should continue your chat with Allen Eltor.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Where is your tropospheric hot spot which would be the inevitable result if what you believe were true?  Reality doesn't, and never will support you ian...


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Showing me an unfinished equation hardly supports your argument. Do you see the equation after the last equals sign....e sigma (T^4 - Tc^4)? That is the finished eauation...and it doesn't state net anything...it describes a gross one way energy flow...you can right net as much as you like, but the final equation after all the equals signs is what matters and it doesn't calculate net anything.. Your math skills, and understanding of math is laughable...


Read the first two equations in the derivation again. You are acting like a troll again.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> When RADIATION is the SOLE MODE of ENERGY LOSS
> TEMPERATURES are by DEFINITION the HIGHEST they can ever BE with the same LIGHT load.




How am I supposed to respond to such garbled gibberish? Tighten up your thinking


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > The VOLUME of SUNLIGHT INFRARED IS PRODIGIOUS
> ...



The INFRARED from the SUN DWARFS the EARTH'S own INFRARED in EVERY SINGLE SPECTRUM AVAILABLE. 

The COOLING GREEN HOUSE GASES stop HALF that 40% of SUNLIGHT that is INFRARED PLUS some. 

The ROILING BATH of infrared ENGULFING the planet is PRODIGIOUS in it's power compared to the SAME spectra
emitted by Earth. 

You're so stupid you actually think a ROCK
so cold WATER is condensed on it's surface
is emitting COMPARABLE light volumes 

with the ENORMOUSLY HOT sun. 

You are JUST exactly as DUMB as you sound.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



If you are talking about the movement of energy, then you are talking about thermodynamics...chalk up another foundational misunderstanding polluting your thinking.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you are suggesting that the opinion provided by some unknown 3rd party regarding his belief on the 2nd law is required in order to give the full meaning of the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself?
> ...



The  key word there is "says".  How valuable is what someone "says" in science?  Either you have observed, measured, evidence to support what you say...or you don't and if you don't  then what you say is just your opinion.  Got any of that observed, measured evidence?


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Where is your tropospheric hot spot which would be the inevitable result if what you believe were true? Reality doesn't, and never will support you ian...



For CO2, the hotspot is at two metres, the mean free path. The surface temperatures are actually air temperatures taken at 1.5-2.0 metres so it isnot really detectable by using standard temperature records.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Todd I want to talk to you about your beliefs that a
> 
> cold nitrogen bath
> is a  heater.
> ...



*cold nitrogen bath
is a heater.*

Who said that? Where? Link?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > When RADIATION is the SOLE MODE of ENERGY LOSS
> ...



The WAY you're supposed to RESPOND, is GO BACK to SCHOOL. 

ANY OBJECT
whose SOLE MODE of ENERGY LOSS is : R.A.D.I.A.N.T. you ignorant double-digit i.q. QUACK
is BY DEFINITION
at the HIGHEST temperature 
a LIGHT can BRING it to. 

This is PART of the WORKING RADIATION ENGINEER'S EVERYDAY BREAD and BUTTER.

When there is ANY other MODE of COOLING PROVIDED
the AMOUNT of cooling goes UP
and TEMPERATURE goes DOWN.

Listen to me KooK: this is one of THE defining ASPECTS of RADIANT-ONLY cooling. 

Objects thus RADIATING into vacuum 
are DEFINITIONALLY at their HIGHEST possible TEMPERATURE
for THAT volume of ENERGY coming IN and OUT. 

D.E.F.I.N.I.T.I.O.N.A.L.L.Y, DiPSTiCK. 

It's PART of the RADIATION PHYSICIST'S 
LONGER-THAN-ABBREVIATED-DICTIONARY

DEFINITION of the MATTER-ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS of OBJECTS in VACUUM.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Either you have observed, measured, evidence to support what you say...or you don't and if you don't then what you say is just your opinion. Got any of that observed, measured evidence?


Not an opinion; It's the science of over 372 thousand physicists.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Todd I want to talk to you about your beliefs that a
> ...



Your CHURCH teaches you the COLD NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE WARMS the PLANET, 33 DEGREES. 

If it's not YOUR CHURCH and you don't BELIEVE that stupid sh** - then you've got nothin to be scared of.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If you are talking about the movement of energy, then you are talking about thermodynamics...chalk up another foundational misunderstanding polluting your thinking.


Nope. EM radiation from accelerating charges is a concept that underlies many areas - Xray machines, synchrotron radiation, bremsstrahlung, etc. And yes it also involves thermodynamics such as BB radiation.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Either you have observed, measured, evidence to support what you say...or you don't and if you don't then what you say is just your opinion. Got any of that observed, measured evidence?
> ...



There was "Critical Research University Scientific Peer Review" and HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of PhDs and Masters' and Bachelors' in 

MEDICINE who were willing to go to COURT and testify that "Pot is like Heroin and worse for you than methyl amphetamines. It's devil weed and if we don't all get on opioids and off pot, pot is gonna make some of us get on opioids." 

A billion communists are still deluded, dark-ages fanatics. 

I dunno the exact thing you two are aguing about but your appeal to authority's worthless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*What is more interesting is that the sources others provide (since you rarely provide anything more than droll one liners) don't agree with the second law of thermodynamics. *

Which sources don't agree with the 2nd Law?
The Handbook of Modern Sensors? 

Now that was hilarious!

*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.*

We're not talking about heat, we're talking about radiation. Don't understand the difference? 

So, my home in Chicago in the winter is 20F.
Now I crank up the furnace to warm my home, does the furnace do work while warming my home?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you are talking about the movement of energy, then you are talking about thermodynamics...chalk up another foundational misunderstanding polluting your thinking.
> ...



Stop speaking like an idiot. Thermodynamics are the sciences documenting ALL THINGS. X-rays are part of THERMODYNAMICS. Syncrotrons emit energy that is ALSO: PART of THERMODYNAMICS. 

How can you people say these KooK-a-Zoid things? there ARE THINGS THAT AREN'T PART of THERMODYNAMICS?

Have YOU ever heard of the FIRST and SECOND and so on, LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS? The word strings you're putting together are PREPOSTEROUS.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Showing me an unfinished equation hardly supports your argument. Do you see the equation after the last equals sign....e sigma (T^4 - Tc^4)? That is the finished eauation...and it doesn't state net anything...it describes a gross one way energy flow...you can right net as much as you like, but the final equation after all the equals signs is what matters and it doesn't calculate net anything.. Your math skills, and understanding of math is laughable...
> ...




A rearranged equation is hardly an unfinished equation. 

Stefan used a cavity experiment to measure the radiation coming off a material, for different temperatures. He used that data and found a relationship for radiation with temperature (in Kelvins) raised to the fourth power.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Actually I provided some above...and then there is always the second law of thermodynamics which states my position very explicitly.*

No, you have never provided a source that explicitly says radiation only flows one way.
You have never provided a source that explicitly says radiation only flows from warm to cold.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> A rearranged equation is hardly an unfinished equation.
> 
> Stefan used a cavity experiment to measure the radiation coming off a material, for different temperatures. He used that data and found a relationship for radiation with temperature (in Kelvins) raised to the fourth power.


Right. I looked at Stefan's original paper. He cited the first two equations and combined them to get the third. I don't remember if he was fully aware of the significance of that, but certainly Boltzmann and Kirchhoff were.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Actually, you are the idiot. Moving electric charges create radiation. SSDD says that radiation can be nullified by simply having a warm object near by. Or even just in the universe, he is clear most of the time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*But the formula states, e.g. 200F- 100F = 100F, it's all one way.*

The formula does not state one way.

*There's no heat flowing upstream.*

Who said anything about heat? We're discussing radiation. Power emitted.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > A rearranged equation is hardly an unfinished equation.
> ...



The cavity experiment was a wonderfully clever idea. The emission and absorption must be equal.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Exactly. CF also failed by using Farenheit rather than Kelvin. And the Temperature must be raised to the fourth power before subtracting. Andif there are two objects then there are two sets of radiation. Radiation only reacts with matter, not other radiation, therefore once emitted it must reach its destination.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



No link?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Whenever you started talking about the Atmosphere being "a magical battery warming the rock" it's chilling, your reputation for knowing what you're talking about to me was DONE.
> ...




I'm looking for an equation. This is the first hit

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

Global Warming​


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Either you have observed, measured, evidence to support what you say...or you don't and if you don't then what you say is just your opinion. Got any of that observed, measured evidence?
> ...



So with that many physicists on the job, surely you have some observed, measured evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm...lets see it.  What's that?  Don't have any?  Then what you have is an opinion not supported by any actual observed measured physical evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> A rearranged equation is hardly an unfinished equation.



tell me ian...do you think rearranging the equation actually makes something different happen in reality?  Really?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I don't say that...the SB law says that.  I just read what the equation say.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...




Thanks for giving it some thought. The mathematical reason is more of a property than an equation. Think about area to circumference. A circle is best. A 10 x10 square is not bad. A 1 x 19 rectangle is inefficient. Radiation to temperature is fourth power relationship, not just a squared relationship.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...




What is interesting is that the ideal gas laws, and incoming solar radiation will give you damned near the exact temperature of every planet in the solar system without the need for a greenhouse effect....and if you use the calculations from which the greenhouse effect is derived, they don't come close to estimating the temperature of any planet in the solar system other than earth...and they only work on earth if you use an ad hoc fudge factor.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So with that many physicists on the job, surely you have some observed, measured evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm...lets see it. What's that? Don't have any? Then what you have is an opinion not supported by any actual observed measured physical evidence.


Scientists believe the CMB penetrated earth. You don't.
Scientists believe the mathematics of quantum mechanics. You don't.
Etc. 
Their's is not opinion. It is evidenced belief. Your opinion violates quantum mechanics.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Thanks. And all I can say is I'm with you, Wuwei and Toddster in this debate. I'm late to the party but will try to getup to speed.

And I need to depart now.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Sorry, that should read 'not clear'.

The S-B law does not say the production of radiation is controlled by anything other than the temperature of the object. The rate of temperature loss or gain is affected by radiation from other objects.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



No. No. LoL No. 

When you calculate the temperature of the planet the very first thing you do is determine how much light strikes the surface of the planet. 

And the way you do that is by separating the two values of energy at the physical surface or what would be referred to as Mean Sea Level, 

and what the value of sunlight energy intensity is at the TOP of the atmosphere. 

There is only ONE class gases that affects the amount of sunlight striking the surface, to any real degree at all. 

These are the cooling Green House Gases. The cooling green house gases take some 22% of all sunlight energy from the equation for temperature of the planets' surface by being the nearly SOLE gases to DO any of this

initial cooling, 
BEFORE
the conduction cooling by those gases starts. 

When you SUBTRACT sunlight at surface from sunlight at top of atmsophere
that is the % initial cooling the green house gases cause. 

They cause NO warming. Ever. Of any kind whatever. And neither does the atmosphere. 

The Atmosphere is a cold nitrogen bath conduction chilling the planet.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



What? MOVING CHARGES ARE PART OF THERMODYNAMICS, Mall shoe salesman. 

YES. 
THEY ARE. 

The word strings you people put together are as preposterous as your KWACK-O CLAIM

you think a COLD nitrogen bath, HEATS the rock it's chilling.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

So Todd, are you and your other magic gas barking kook buddies trying to FIND OUT the NAME of the LAW of PHYSICS you don't even know the NAME of, that - you're claiming you understand so well, that you've discovered it says a 

COLD nitrogen bath is a HEATER
and the
COLD
light blocking REFRIGERANTS 

chilling not just the ROCK but the entire nitrogen BATH, 
are the CORE of the MAGICAL COLD NITROGEN HEATER? 

I'm noticing you're not even able to make that sweaty mouse hand of yours even bring you to TRY to answer even BASIC questions about your KOOK pseudo-science church.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



There's no "green house effect" of ANY kind. The COLD, LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERANTS, 

reduce the temperature of the planet about 22% RIGHT off the TOP. 

They THEN proceed to aid the REST of the bath in CONDUCTION chilling the surface

and the MAIN GHG adds conduction cooling acceleration called PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERATION.

Not just of the surface.
Of the entire cold nitrogen bath as well.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So with that many physicists on the job, surely you have some observed, measured evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm...lets see it. What's that? Don't have any? Then what you have is an opinion not supported by any actual observed measured physical evidence.
> ...



No they don't...they believe a resonant radio frequency was detected on the surface...not actual CMB...




Wuwei said:


> Scientists believe the mathematics of quantum mechanics. You don't.
> Etc.
> Their's is not opinion. It is evidenced belief. Your opinion violates quantum mechanics.



Belief:  confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.  
Evidence:  that which tends to prove or disprove something

If they had evidence, then belief would not be necessary.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No they don't...they believe a resonant radio frequency was detected on the surface...not actual CMB...



Now you are being a total troll. The radio frequency was the output of the amplifier. The input was the CMB reflected from a warm antenna after penetrating earth. You know that, so not only are you a troll, you are lying.



SSDD said:


> Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
> Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something
> 
> If they had evidence, then belief would not be necessary.



We know you pretend not to believe in QM, troll. Anything related to electricity and magnetism has been verified by experiment to parts per billion or trillion accuracy. You have no evidence EM from accelerated charges can be impeded. Absolutely none.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Now you are being a total troll. The radio frequency was the output of the amplifier. The input was the CMB reflected from a warm antenna after penetrating earth. You know that, so not only are you a troll, you are lying.



If stating what is, rather than what you believe or wish makes me a troll then I guess we can chalk up one more word you don't know the meaning of.




Wuwei said:


> We know you pretend not to believe in QM, troll. Anything related to electricity and magnetism has been verified by experiment to parts per billion or trillion accuracy. You have no evidence EM from accelerated charges can be impeded. Absolutely none.




Modelled experiments...not observed measured experiments...it is models all the way down with you guys.  And why can't you bring yourself to simply admit that neither you nor all of science has the first observed, measured instance of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



That sounds like a bunch of babble to me. What "cooling" greenhouse gases? Which gases are they?

And can you give me a link to this equation for the temperature at the earth's surface?

I am unfamiliar with this theory so I'd like something with more meat to it, in language that is understandable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> So Todd, are you and your other magic gas barking kook buddies trying to FIND OUT the NAME of the LAW of PHYSICS you don't even know the NAME of, that - you're claiming you understand so well, that you've discovered it says a
> 
> COLD nitrogen bath is a HEATER
> and the
> ...



Still no link?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > So Todd, are you and your other magic gas barking kook buddies trying to FIND OUT the NAME of the LAW of PHYSICS you don't even know the NAME of, that - you're claiming you understand so well, that you've discovered it says a
> ...



That one is incoherent


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If stating what is, rather than what you believe or wish makes me a troll then I guess we can chalk up one more word you don't know the meaning of.



Nope, lying about what science is about - that makes you a troll.



SSDD said:


> Modelled experiments...not observed measured experiments...it is models all the way down with you guys. And why can't you bring yourself to simply admit that neither you nor all of science has the first observed, measured instance of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm?


Yep, physics is based on mathematical models. Can't do much science these days without it. 372 thousand scientist know that, and know the CMB penetrated the earth. You have no proof that says otherwise. Troll.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> That one is incoherent


Isn't that the truth. There are a few others here that are incoherent but not as much as that one.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If stating what is, rather than what you believe or wish makes me a troll then I guess we can chalk up one more word you don't know the meaning of.
> ...



I have provided you with the article that stated explicitly that they received a resonant radio frequency that equated to CMB...it isn't my fault that you think that means that the resonant radio frequency was actually cmb.

and models without physical verification mean exactly jack.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I love the idea that a signal is detected at the Earth's surface without that signal entering the atmosphere.

Magic waves!


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I have provided you with the article that stated explicitly that they received a resonant radio frequency that equated to CMB...it isn't my fault that you think that means that the resonant radio frequency was actually cmb.


You never provided an article that said nor implied the CMB did not penetrate the air to a warm dish. 


SSDD said:


> models without physical verification mean exactly jack.


 All models of EM radiation have been verified by experiments to parts per billion accuracy.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Magic waves!


First smart photons. Now magic waves! What wonders are next?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I have provided you with the article that stated explicitly that they received a resonant radio frequency that equated to CMB...it isn't my fault that you think that means that the resonant radio frequency was actually cmb.
> ...



models and models and models and not the first piece of physical evidence.  Is EM radiation an observable, measurable, testable physical entity?  Wouldn't you think that you might have physical evidence supporting claims regarding a physical entity?  You are laughable.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Magic waves!
> ...



Now you are just being a pissy little girl out of frustration over the fact that I won't join you in your faith.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Heat Transfer Through Conduction: Equation & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com






_Q_ over _t_ is the rate of heat transfer - the amount of heat transferred per second, measured in Joules per second, or Watts. _k_is the thermal conductivity of the material - for example, copper has a thermal conductivity of 390, but wool has a thermal conductivity of just 0.04. _T1_ is the temperature of one object, and _T2_ is the temperature of the other. Since it's a temperature difference, you can actually use Celsius or Kelvin, whichever is most convenient. And _d_ is the thickness of the material we're interested in. So the rate of heat transfer to an object is equal to the thermal conductivity of the material the object is made from, multiplied by the surface area in contact, multiplied by the difference in temperature between the two objects, divided by the thickness of the material.

*Calculation Example*
Okay, let's go through an example. Let's say you're going to a water park, and you're going to take a Styrofoam cooler with you. The cooler has a total surface area of 1.2 meters squared, and the walls are 0.03 meters thick. The temperature inside the cooler is 0 Celsius, and at the hottest part of the day it's 38 degrees Celsius. During this time of day, how much heat energy per second is lost by the cooler? And how much heat energy is lost in three hours at the water park assuming the temperature stays at 38 degrees? (Note: The thermal conductivity of Styrofoam is 0.01.)"

So you're saying their equation is incorrect, that the computation is not T2-T1, but T2-T1 + imaginary heat radiated from the cooler to the warmer


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What kind of evidence do you need to confirm the physical presence of EM radiation?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



The evidence would be of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object in spite of the second law of thermodynamics which says:   It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I think we are talking apples and oranges. Do I think there will be a net flow of energy from a colder body to a warmer one, with no work done? No. But let me propose this idea - put two steel balls, suspended on thin wires, in an enclosed space with the air removed. One ball is at 0C, the other at 100C, and the walls of the enclosure are at 25C. All will radiate - both steel balls and the walls of the enclosure. Eventually, assuming the temperature of the walls are held constant, everything will move to the same temp, 25C. So the colder ball will gain energy, the warmer will lose energy, and everything will continue to radiate.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> I think we are talking apples and oranges. Do I think there will be a net flow of energy from a colder body to a warmer one, with no work done? No. But let me propose this idea - put two steel balls, suspended on thin wires, in an enclosed space with the air removed. One ball is at 0C, the other at 100C, and the walls of the enclosure are at 25C. All will radiate - both steel balls and the walls of the enclosure. Eventually, assuming the temperature of the walls are held constant, everything will move to the same temp, 25C. So the colder ball will gain energy, the warmer will lose energy, and everything will continue to radiate.




Radiate to where that wouldn't result in spontaneous two way energy flow?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > I think we are talking apples and oranges. Do I think there will be a net flow of energy from a colder body to a warmer one, with no work done? No. But let me propose this idea - put two steel balls, suspended on thin wires, in an enclosed space with the air removed. One ball is at 0C, the other at 100C, and the walls of the enclosure are at 25C. All will radiate - both steel balls and the walls of the enclosure. Eventually, assuming the temperature of the walls are held constant, everything will move to the same temp, 25C. So the colder ball will gain energy, the warmer will lose energy, and everything will continue to radiate.
> ...



There will be two way energy flow. Everything radiates that is above absolute zero. But the NET energy flow will be from the warmer to the cooler objects.

And why do we need evidence of unforced energy flow from cooler to warmer to confirm EM radiation?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Back to net...there is no net energy flow.  But if you can provide observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow, wuwei and toddster would be so happy.  They have been stymied on that bit of evidence for years.  I know what the models say...models are not, however observed, measured evidence.

And it wasn't evidence of EM radiation I was asking for..it was once again, observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Going to my example, an IR sensor would detect energy flowing in all directions from both steel balls. That would be direct, measured evidence of two way energy flow. And what do you mean there is no net energy flow? Are you saying the cold steel ball wouldn't get warmer and the warm steel ball wouldn't get colder?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Heat Transfer Through Conduction:

Thanks for the link.
We're discussing radiation at the moment.
Not conduction.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> [
> 
> Going to my example, an IR sensor would detect energy flowing in all directions from both steel balls. That would be direct, measured evidence of two way energy flow. And what do you mean there is no net energy flow? Are you saying the cold steel ball wouldn't get warmer and the warm steel ball wouldn't get colder?



No, an IR sensor at ambient temperature would not detect energy flowing in all directions.

What do I mean?  It's easy.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  that is the SB equation for radiating bodies, not in a vacuum, and in the presence of other matter.  Set T and Tc to the same number....what does P then equal?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Doesn't matter whether you are talking about conduction, radiation, free electrons flowing down a wire, or a bowling ball rolling down a hill...it is all energy exchange and all obeys the second law of thermodynamics.  You miss the boat with your terribly flawed belief that radiation has some special exemption from obeying the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Going to my example, an IR sensor would detect energy flowing in all directions from both steel balls. That would be direct, measured evidence of two way energy flow. And what do you mean there is no net energy flow? Are you saying the cold steel ball wouldn't get warmer and the warm steel ball wouldn't get colder?
> ...



Both steel balls will be radiating in all directions. Do you dispute this?

And this

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

States your equation describes a hot body, T, radiating into cooler surroundings Tc. But back to your comment. I don't disagree

_ Set T and Tc to the same number....what does P then equal?_​
The answer must be zero. But both steel balls will still radiate, in my example. Going to my link, it implies the emitter is the same temperature as its surroundings. But the emitter will still emit if it is above absolute zero.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



P= the amount of radiation emitting from the radiator which is dependent upon the temperature difference between T and Tc.  When T and Tc are the same and P=zero...that means something.  The equation is making a statement about reality.  Alter the statement and you must alter the equation...alter the equation and it no longer represents the physical law.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yes EM radiation is an observable, measurable, testable physical entity? You are observing it right now as you read this. Scientists have shown it agrees with the mathematical models to parts per billion accuracy. Scientists observed the CMB on the earth surface too.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Keep yanking your own chain if it gets you though life.  Face it guy...you couldn't support your argument...you engaged in logical fallacies one after another and showed how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...nothing more.  The Second law of thermodynamics still says what it says and the SB law still says what it says.  Nothing has changed.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> There will be two way energy flow. Everything radiates that is above absolute zero. But the NET energy flow will be from the warmer to the cooler objects.
> 
> And why do we need evidence of unforced energy flow from cooler to warmer to confirm EM radiation?


You are certainly right. SSDD believes that the presence of a warmer body will keep the  colder body from radiating anything toward it even thought the surface charges are vibrating like mad.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



And I say the equation represents the NET change in energy between the object and environment. The object will still be radiating.

From my link:

_If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, *the net radiation loss* rate takes the form_


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > There will be two way energy flow. Everything radiates that is above absolute zero. But the NET energy flow will be from the warmer to the cooler objects.
> ...



Exactly so.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Keep yanking your own chain if it gets you though life. Face it guy...you couldn't support your argument...you engaged in logical fallacies one after another and showed how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...nothing more. The Second law of thermodynamics still says what it says and the SB law still says what it says. Nothing has changed.


 Where is the logical fallacy? 
This derivation shows what ChesBayJJ, Tod, etc, myself, and 372 thousand scientists agree with.

For a substance at temperature T₁ 
and the background at temperature T₂.

Emission: Rₑ = e σ T₁⁴

Absorption: Rₐ =e σ T₂⁴

The net rate of EM energy exchange:

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = e σ T₁⁴ – e σ T₂⁴ = e σ (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

ehs


ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...


Really...Which expression within that equation allows you to calculate net?  I see T-Tc...that expression describes a gross change, not a net change.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*Doesn't matter whether you are talking about conduction, radiation, free electrons flowing down a wire, or a bowling ball rolling down a hill...it is all energy exchange and all obeys the second law of thermodynamics. *

None of which helps your "Photons can only go from warmer matter to cooler matter" claim.

It seems like you ran away from my discussion of heating my home in winter.
Why are you afraid?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Keep yanking your own chain if it gets you though life. Face it guy...you couldn't support your argument...you engaged in logical fallacies one after another and showed how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...nothing more. The Second law of thermodynamics still says what it says and the SB law still says what it says. Nothing has changed.
> ...



You see the expression after the second equals sign...that expression speaks the SB law...the rest is just the math necessary to derive the SB law...you can write net all you like, but the expression that is the SB law does not calculate net.  Once more, your math skills are laughable.  You can't read an equation, and you don't seem to grasp that the final form of the equation is the working equation regardless of the calculations required to reach that final expression...  Just more mental masturbation on your part...


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ehs
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Wuwei just gave it to you but I see you are in denial


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ehs
> ...



The expression after the second equals sign is the SB equation one uses for objects not in a vacuum and in the presence of other matter...it is the same as the equation I gave you...it is the mathematical expression of the SB law...so again, which expression within that formula are you using to calculate net?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*.the rest is just the math necessary to derive the SB law.*
Yes. The first two expressions are the input and output EM energies. 

*.you can write net all you like, but the expression that is the SB law does not calculate net. *

The third expression is a subtraction of output minus input (emission minus absorption). That is the definition of net. How can you say that the final expression is not net?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Sorry guy....when you use the SB law to calculate P, you use the equation after the last equals sign...nothing else.  That is the mathematical expression of the SB law....there is no expression there to express energy the radiator is receiving from the back ground because it is receiving no energy from the background...refer to the second law...not possible for energy to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.  There is no net energy flow.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy....when you use the SB law to calculate P, you use the equation after the last equals sign...nothing else. That is the mathematical expression of the SB law....there is no expression there to express energy the radiator is receiving from the back ground because it is receiving no energy from the background...refer to the second law...not possible for energy to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. There is no net energy flow.



You point out the first two expressions being used to for the final form. The second expression is 
Absorption: Rₐ =ε σ T₂⁴
Now you are saying absorption of energy from the colder body is zero. That doesn't make any sense.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

Hopeless


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The expression after the second equals sign is the SB equation one uses for objects not in a vacuum and in the presence of other matter...it is the same as the equation I gave you...it is the mathematical expression of the SB law...so again, which expression within that formula are you using to calculate net?


The first two expressions of emission and absorption are subtracted. I told you many times. A vacuum has nothing to do with thermal emission or absorption. A non-GHG between object and background would give the same results.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy....when you use the SB law to calculate P, you use the equation after the last equals sign...nothing else. That is the mathematical expression of the SB law....there is no expression there to express energy the radiator is receiving from the back ground because it is receiving no energy from the background...refer to the second law...not possible for energy to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. There is no net energy flow.
> ...



Zero absorption of energy from the colder body is precisely what the second law predicts....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Zero absorption of energy from the colder body is precisely what the second law predicts....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body.


Nope. Nobody believes that.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The expression after the second equals sign is the SB equation one uses for objects not in a vacuum and in the presence of other matter...it is the same as the equation I gave you...it is the mathematical expression of the SB law...so again, which expression within that formula are you using to calculate net?



_*
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:




Calculation




While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Please note": P = NET RADIATED POWER

Stefan-Boltzmann Law*_


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Please note": P = NET RADIATED POWER



SSDD will call that opinion.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



This seems to support your argument

But please note the bold

*Second Law: Refrigerator *
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

This is the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.





*It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation*, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object. 

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law does not say the colder body is unable to give off energy. We always have to go back to NET effects


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Hopeless



In SSDD's world, the warmer object turns the dimmer switch, to reduce its emissions based on the temperature of the cooler object. He never explained how the warmer object can measure the temperature of the cooler object, since no photon is allowed to travel from the cooler object. The warmer object must use ESP.

And then, magically, at equilibrium, the formerly warmer object just "knows" that the temperatures are equal and 
ceases radiating as well.

These edifices have been built so he can insist that global warming isn't a thing because back radiation doesn't exist.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Hopeless
> ...



I was wondering about that. Earlier looks in on this thread gave me the impression SSDD thought the 2nd Law proved AGW  could not happen. Seems like he just doesn't understand the fine details on some of the laws of physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> This seems to support your argument
> 
> But please note the bold


That is a great site. It clearly spells out what SSDD refuses to accept. It has been posted here before though. SSDD knows about the site, but calls the bold faced text "opinion".


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> I was wondering about that. Earlier looks in on this thread gave me the impression SSDD thought the 2nd Law proved AGW could not happen. Seems like he just doesn't understand the fine details on some of the laws of physics.


My opinion is that they are not failures in fine details. They are major failures that would upset the foundations of both classical and modern physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




*it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body.*

_Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher.
_
Thermosphere - overview | UCAR Center for Science Education

If the thermosphere is 500 C or hotter, how can the Earth's surface ever shed heat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*you engaged in logical fallacies one after another and showed how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...nothing more.*







http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

We're fooled by instrumentation, the Handbook Of Modern Sensors is fooled by instrumentation.
Everybody but you.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

For SSDD: Don't forget the wisdom of Dartmouth University
Here is another source so that you can make caustic remarks about scientists. 
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> For SSDD: Don't forget the wisdom of Dartmouth University
> Here is another source so that you can make caustic remarks about scientists.
> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf



They obviously don't understand the 2nd Law and the one-way only flow of energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Please note": P = NET RADIATED POWER
> ...



Of course it is since it isn't what the SB law says...and it isn't supported by anything like observed measured evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



If by that you mean I don't alter the statements of the laws, or invent expressions for net in order to support my faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models then yes, I understand them differently than you.  I accept the statements as they are and don't feel the need to add to them in order to make myself comfortable with the world,


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering about that. Earlier looks in on this thread gave me the impression SSDD thought the 2nd Law proved AGW could not happen. Seems like he just doesn't understand the fine details on some of the laws of physics.
> ...



I am sure that is what you like to think...but alas, it isn't me who can't support my position with the satements of the physical laws...it isn't me who has to find someones opinion to post in an effort to support my position..it isn't me who can't provide actual observed, measured evidence to support my position.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And I have shown you university physics web sites that specifically mention the term net. I'm not making that up to satisfy myself I am correct nor have I altered anything. It appears to be what the physics community feels the law actually means. It is you that goes against this.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



He'll be posting up some sources that agree with him...…..any minute now.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> And I have shown you university physics web sites that specifically mention the term net. I'm not making that up to satisfy myself I am correct nor have I altered anything. It appears to be what the physics community feels the law actually means. It is you that goes against this.



What the community FEELS the law means?  Not because the community has observed measured evidence that demonstrates that the statements of the physical laws are incorrect...but because the community FEELS that the law actually means irregardless of what the laws actually say in completely unambiguous language?  What the community feels...right.  Sounds like pseudoscience by committees to me.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Of course it is since it isn't what the SB law says...and it isn't supported by anything like observed measured evidence.


These lies from the troll are getting pretty stale.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If by that you mean I don't alter the statements of the laws, or invent expressions for net in order to support my faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models then yes, I understand them differently than you. I accept the statements as they are and don't feel the need to add to them in order to make myself comfortable with the world,


Yeah, yeah face value again. More trite lies from the troll.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > So Todd, are you and your other magic gas barking kook buddies trying to FIND OUT the NAME of the LAW of PHYSICS you don't even know the NAME of, that - you're claiming you understand so well, that you've discovered it says a
> ...



This isn't about link-don't-think b**ch. It's about you being so f**g stupid you thought a cold nitrogen bath is a heater.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...


 No b***ch YOU'RE a shoe salesman at a mall. As is Todd the Hick. 

I'm the radiation engineer and atmospheric chemist MOCKING your dumb b**ch @#$ for letting somebody tell you a cold nitrogen bath's a heater.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > That one is incoherent
> ...


 You're another b**ch who sells shoes at a store and are so STUPID you think a cold nitrogen bath is a heater.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Magic waves is when somebody tells you a cold nitrogen bath warmed the rock it was chilling and you bobbing that Taco Bell cap up and down that you believed it was true, stupid.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Why don't a few of you b****hes pass the feminine pads around and start telling me about your church. 

Because you're all so f***n stupid you're embarrassed somebody told you a cold nitrogen bath's a heater. 

And that you wasted your years trying to convince people a nitrogen bath many degrees colder than the rock it's chilling, made more light, heat the rock 33 degrees warmer, 

every time the cold light blocking refrigerants in the bath make less light reach the rock and warm it. 

That's why you sh*** for brains janitors don't have the balls step up and defend your church. 

Your hand starts sweating, and won't go over and make you click "reply" and start proselytizing for your HICK'S religion.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Cmon c**funnels tell us all a story about how the cold nitrogen bath, 

made more light warm a rock, 

everytime insulation in the rock

made less light warm the rock. 

ALL of you TOGETHER don't have the I.Q. points to explain a COLD BATH is a 33 DEGREE HEATER.

Because you're STUPID.

Because you're all educated in the PUBLIC schools, where you graduated 30% behind home-schooled Ozarks FUNDIES teaching themselves the 3Rs on their front porch chain swing. 

30% behing home-schooled Ozarks fundies in EVERY EDUCATIONAL METRIC ever devised to hide how insufferably STUPID every one of you were when you left the 12 years of government indoctrination that 

"Fancy guvurmint min has dun discovered POT'S like HEROIN
and that a  COLD nitrogen BATH, is a MAGiCAL HEEDUR! YaW!!

I dare ONE of you b**ches to show me another instance of CONDUCTION CHILLING a LIGHT-WARMED ROCK with a BATH

such that the rock winds up WARMER due to the COLD BATH BLOCKING NEARLY 25% of LIGHT warming the rock. 

The cooling green house gases reduce the sunlight to the planet by abou 22%. 

There's no such thing as COOLING something 22% 
leading to it WARMING something 33 degrees. 

If it existed you sh** for brains Taco Bellers wouldn't be hiding and sitting there at your keyboards eating boogers and deflecting from the fact you're too STUPID

to EXPLAIN to someone 
how someone ELSE convinced you a COLD NITROGEN BATH WARMED A LIGHT WARMED ROCK, 

it was REDUCING LIGHT to by 22%. 

S** for brains HicKs. 

ONE of you b***es tell me you know of another cold nitrogen bath that made a light warmed rock WARMER

by REMOVING 22% of the light warming it.

Any one of you little b****es wanna try to defend your Church? 

No you're too chickensh** to bring your Church up to me because you know I'll have everybody who ever comes by here laughing in your illiterate, innumerate faces.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

No you all sit there with those boogers on your fingers, wondering if you eat it and don't tell anybody if it'll relieve the nervous fear of having to explain to somebody how a man 

CONVINCED YOU that a COLD NITROGEN BATH, stopping 22% of the light WARMING a LIGHT-WARMED ROCK

is actually a MAGICAL HEEDUR and the COLD NITROGEN BATH, made the TEMPERATURE of the ROCK it CHILLED

rise 33 degrees - AFTER the magical insulation, 

CREATED out of NOTHING, the 22% energy it caused to be REFRACTED to SPACE - never ENTERING Earth's physical, hence mathematical accounting systems, 

then having "made thim rock dun be 22 pur sint warmer, after it dun made the rock 22% COOLER,"

"made the rock AND the entire COLD NITROGEN BATH, 33 degrees WARMER"

than if there WAS NO COLD NITROGEN BATH. 

That kind of sh*** for brains INNUMERACY and ILLITERACY is what's got you PUBBERS
in here squealing a MAGICAL GAiSSiNESS dun made a COLD NITROGEN BATH, a HEATER,
not a COLD NITROGEN BATH. 

What a bunch of mall shoe-store class intellectual c**funnels

Show us. SHOW US YOUR MATHEMATICS where you CHILL a ROCK with COLD NITROGEN
then add COLD LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERANTS to the COLD NITROGEN BATH
and make the THERMOMETERS on the ROCK
show MORE light reaching and warming the rock, 

you stupid, 
booger-eating HicKS

everytime the MAGICAL GASSINESS makes LESS LIGHT warm the ROCK. 

I D.A.R.E. one of you b****es to bring your church up to me. 

I DARE you to start barking abowt  thuh magical gaissiness what dun made uh
COLD NITROGEN BATH
a HEEDUR.

HiCKs.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

"At'TaiR MaGiCaL GAiSSiNess, dun made uh... COALD BATH uh HEEDUR, YAW!!" 

Every last illiterate and innumerate pubber condom-lubricant-for-brains is afraid to testify of your church. 

Cmon, MAGICAL GAISSINES dun MADE a COLD NITROGEN BATH a HEEDuR Barkers, 

TESTIFY! 

Get up on your TACO BELL box of dried beans and DISSEMBLE a few SYLLABLES for everybody about how

FIRST the rock was in vacuum of space, being heated with ONE mode of cooling, 
and then, 
a COLD NITROGEN BATH WASHING HEAT off of it made it's temperature go HIGHER and HIGHER

as the - Cmon you little squealers - what's the next line? 

AS the MAGICALNESS of the GAiSSiNESS dun made MOAR LIGHT WARM that ROCK,
evur time the magicalness of the GAiSSiNESS dun made LESS LIGHT WARM the ROCK.

Sing it all in harmony you 60 I.Q. public school hicks. I DARE each and every one of you
to come in here and start answering questions about your STORY 

that a COLD NITROGEN BATH
is MAKING a LIGHT-WARMED ROCK 
EVER WARMER
every time the bath makes LESS LIGHT reach and warm the ROCK.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Tick, ToCK, TiCK, ToCK, EVERY LAST ONE of you STUPID PUBLIC SCHOOL INDOCTRINATED PiNHeaDS

is so scared to mention your church the entire internet can hear the SWEAT pouring out of you as you cast around 

DESPERATELY looking for the GUTS to MENTION your CHURCH.

The reason you're all HIDING is because you're SCARED. 

You're all sitting there SWEATING. And ASHAMED you have to come tell the world YOU THOUGHT COLD BATHS
are magical HEATERs.

And that everytime INSULATION in the COLD BATH,
made LESS LIGHT WARM a ROCK, 

MAGICALNESS of the GAiSSiNESS
made SENSORS SHOE MORE LIGHT warming the ROCK. 

The most FLAGRANT and SHAMELESS and UNDISGUISED violation of Conservation of Energy,

and you booger-eaters are sucking that sh** up like it's ENERGY drink. 

COLD BATH makes ROCK get WARMER 
by being MANY DEGREES COLDER and CONDUCTION CHILLING IT
and while INSULATION in the BATH
makes LESS WARMING LIGHT even REACH the rock. 

That's your stories, and you're all too chickensh*** to stand up and testify that

 "Oh, it's REELE YaW! 

EVUR TIME the MAGICAL GAiSSiNESS dun made LESS LIGHT WARM the ROCK,

the MAGICALNESS
of the GAISSINESS
dun made SINT SURS SHOW MOAR LIGHT COMIN' OWT OF IF YAW!!"

Stupid, 
Brainsless
C*NTS, 

SQUEALING to the HIGH HEAVENS that - in TRUTH,
LESS LIGHT WARMING A ROCK,
makes SENSORS SHOW 
MORE LIGHT WARMING the ROCK.

Everytime INSULATION makes
LESS light WARM the ROCK. 

I DARE one of you B***ches to come in here and try to defend that STUPID sh**.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> "At'TaiR MaGiCaL GAiSSiNess, dun made uh... COALD BATH uh HEEDUR, YAW!!"
> 
> Every last illiterate and innumerate pubber condom-lubricant-for-brains is afraid to testify of your church.
> 
> ...




Here is your "global warming" in a fucking nutshell.....it's called "geo-engineering" aka Solar Radiation Management. This climate change bullshit is being intentionally caused to scare the sheeple. I would be glad to debate this topic if you are one of those "fossil fuels" believers.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > "At'TaiR MaGiCaL GAiSSiNess, dun made uh... COALD BATH uh HEEDUR, YAW!!"
> ...



Dale I'm actually an Radiation or Radiant Communications Electronic Engineer, whose first career was as an environmental, atmospheric and biological chemist serving my mother in some businesses she started to give my terminally ill brother an education. I naturally got pulled into the orbit of it and it turned into not just a commercial rare/exotic/expensive fish breeding and raising operation to sell stock to pets stores etc - but it eventually became a working retail front with about 35 aquariums and ponds where my mother, my brother, and I started breeding and raising several, and selling and or teaching people about, almost every class life discovered by mankind before it was over.

Since my mother had started the original businesses specifically to give my brother and then myself when everyone saw how bad the pube skewlz are - graduating 5 times more likely to have V.D. than a job - my mother kept expanding her business interests to teach us the chemistry and physics of the world in wider ways.

She collected and traded antiques, specifically to teach my brother and I about the business - and how to detect fraud on a commercial level. She had us collecting coins and stamps and antique glass, etc.

My brother's neuromuscular disease had him on death's bed before long so my mother had to fold these businesses up little by little, but I managed to attend those dismal public ghettos called schools ONLY for MATH, grammar and history,

then my mother made me conceive, research outline, annotate and write, scores of papers securing me not sufficient credit to graduate but DOUBLE any make-up work, because the schools were CONSTANTLY trying to imply my mother wasn't able to do as good a job educating me as they,

* * * every time my mother sent me to school with papers half the teaching facility couldn't read because all the words were too big for their stupid asses to even PRONOUNCE.

So my mother in doing this for several years, got me away from those despicable public illiteracy/innumeracy pits throughout half of 4 grades, then I graduated HS a  year early.

When I was in the first of two schools for Electronic Engineering I heard JAMES HANSEN'S BOSS telling a REPORTER

the SPECIFICS of the MAGIC GAS SCAM, on an FM NPR station I kept turned on a lot in my home. He explained the COMPUTER PROGRAMMING being designed to use SOLELY STEFAN-BOLTZMANN PROCESSING

to process GAS or COMPRESSIBLE PHASE matter temperatures and how it ALWAYS delivers a MANDATORY

33 DEGREE SHORTFALL when SOMEONE DOES this. If the proper calculates are done and the value of the Atmosphere's COMPRESSION WARMING is CORRECTLY ADDED BACK to the ***erroneous*** Stefan-Botzmann ONLY fraud that

MAKES their CALCULATIONS NEVER MATCH the KNOWN-CORRECT International Standard Atmosphere, which is the ATMOSPHERIC VALUES-SET against which - ultimately every manufactured and warrantied object on the PLANET related to heat, pressure, human or animal safety, ANYTHING which is tested at specifically arranged temperature and atmospheric conditions.
EVERYTHING on the planet, BASICALLY,
that has ANY reason to be regulated or tested,
has some of it's standards based in, at the bottom of things, PROPER atmospheric TEMP/HUMIDITY/PRESSURE/COMPOSITION at the time of testing.

The International Standard Atmosphere is what EVERYthing in an aircraft or spacecraft or ANY platform with instruments in it is calibrated against; it's a KNOWN-GOOD TEMPERATURE that makes it possible for MACHINES to land jetliners with accurate temperature/humidity/density computations.

THE MAGIC GAS CHURCH'S "CALCULATIONS" fall 33 DEGREES SHORT.
Because of WHAT their FRAUD DADDY SAID about computers: "THIM COMPUTURS IS SO SMART I AIN'T GOTTA YEWZ THIM GAIS LAWS, THAY AIN'T CLIMMTIE LIKE I AM."

This from the FRAUD who told the entire PLANET the ATMOSPHERE is a MAGICAL HEATER not a COLD NITROGEN BATH
and that the LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERANTS in the bath, REDUCING TEMPERATURE of the bath 22% off the top when calculation of global atmospheric temperature begins, and light at the surface, rather than top of atmosphere is used for calculation of the planet's surface.

Anyway Dale Hansen's BOSS explained that Hansen's MODELS NEVER INCLUDE THE MANDATORY 33 DEGREES COMPRESSION WARMING CREATED by the WEIGHT of the ATMOSPHERE.

The GAS LAW for SOLVING GAS TEMPERATURES is NEVER SEEN nor MENTIONED in their FAKED FRAUDULENT "CALCULATION" which ALWAYS COMES UP

33 DEGREES SHORT,
of the REAL Atmospheric temperature, NOTED IN the INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY and CALIBRATION standard called the International Standard Atmosphere.

Hansen's supervisor explained this as I was working alone with a little FM radio and some earbuds and I understood what the man was saying because I was ALREADY a working atmospheric chemist, and, in my third year of school as an Atmospheric radiation Engineer.

The whole thing only takes about five minutes to explain.

Calculate the termperature of the planet's atmosphere wrong, so it OBVIOUSLY doesn't match it's real temperature,
and comes up 33 Degrees SHORT by NEVER referring to GAS LAW where one normally DOES on the way to Stefan-Boltzmann processing at the end of the sequence of calculations.

Claim something seems odd and make up ANY NUMBER of FAKE REASONS and keep scamming for GRANTS was how the scam first got put together.

BUT: this is a form of what's called INVERSION FRAUD in math and chemistry.

See Dale my Father was a Police Chief who later went to work in Federal Law Enforcement,
and when my mom, ran those breeding labs and businesses so my terminally ill brother and by extension I,
got decent educations and didn't graduate ILLITERATE, and INNUMERATE, and UNABLE to fill out a job application

and my mother's connection to him, had people coming to her CONSTANTLY having been defrauded by someone.

Additionally through my father, my mother worked helping Wildlife law enforcement bust people for WILDLIFE SMUGGLING.

On top of both inter-regional and international species smuggling, there's also - particularly before the internet and even cable news - species fraud where animals are sold as one thing but are actually another,

and there are two other main kinds of chemistry fraud surrounding biology: foodstuffs and nutrition chemistry fraud, where people would sell things as something else,

and then black market and counterfeit MEDICINES frauds.

My mother helped people with these because as part of her businesses she referred to my father being in law enforcement, a lifer, and she'd imply she hated frauds, to trust her etc - and people showed up out of the blue REPEATEDLY expecting her to go someplace and confront some asshole at a fair, or an actual brick/morter store, and she'd go tell people she wanted some of their product,
buy it, insist they tell her again what it was,

drive around the corner and meet the people who had gotten her to come over, and they'd call the police. Now this is almost always a civil matter but people would freak the f**** out because LOTS of them actually WERE traveling, drifting frauds, selling tainted stuff, fake stuff, fake animals, sick ones, stolen ones, fake medicines, etc.

So Dale - I'm not really here because I'm suspicious of the condensation trails that come from burning large oil heaters in the frigid troposphere. Fire always creates water, and that water is what you see in those condensation trails, the millions of people who have pumped billions off TESTED PURE JET FUEL into those planes would know if something was up.

My reason for being here is to himiliate the HiCKBiLLiES of the "MAGICAL GAISSINESS dun made a COALD BATH uh HEEDUR, YaW!" movement.

It's FRAUD, specifically INVERSION fraud where COLD LIGHT REMOVING REFRIGERANTS
CHILLING a LIGHT-WARMED ROCK
are claimed to have CONVERTED  a COLD NITROGEN BATH into a HEATER
through their LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERATION
of the NITROGEN BATH ITSELF,
and the surface of the planet.

The main GHG water is the one RESPONSIBLE for nearly ALL the initial REFRIGERATION when it blocks about 20% of otherwise available warming firelight from the sun,
from ever even being counted as warming Earth.

It also serves as global PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERANT, evaporatively cooling the surface, rising, handing off and radiating energy to space to fall SCORES of times back through the same warm updraft,
going from ICE
back to VAPOR

as it picks up heat again and rises to cool and fall, it refrigerates not just the SURFACE through evaporation
but the main COLD NITROGEN BATH AT LARGE,
by
WARMING and SUBLIMATING to VAPOR,
rising,
CONDENSING to SOLID PHASE again and the entire loop happens SCORES of times in EVERY convection cooling storm event.

So I'll pass on the discussion with you Dale, at this time, because it's not really a matter of interest to me but I'm certainly willing to read most of what you have to say.

Peace


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

The reason Dale you see these people so stupid is because they were all subjected to 12 years' enforced government employee indoctrination. Where they told these peoples grandfathers that 

"government emploees had discovered pot was like heroin and it was better to be on methyl amphetamines because they were less harmful" and that "guvurmint min had peer reviewed scientific proof," that pot was a "devilish weed, which makes people git ReeFuR MaDNiSS!"
Yaw!

Now are graduating people so stupid they're in college and at the beach for July 4, can't tell a news crew WHAT INDEPENDENCE DAY STANDS FOR: WHO is independent of WHAT.

These same goobers are gobbling and bobbing on the fraud knob about a 
COLD NITROGEN BATH
warming a ROCK it is CONDUCTION CHILLING
instead of cooling it and being MADE into a magical HEATER
by the COLD LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERANTS
taking 22% of the available light COMPLETELY OUT of the EQUATION
as the FIRST STEP in CALCULATION of TEMPERATURE of the bath,

making the rock WARMER 
than if there was NO COLD NITROGEN BATH
33 degrees WARMER. 

That's right Dale the COLD REFRIGERANTS
SUBTRACTING 22% from PLANETARY TEMPERATURE CALCULATION

are magically manufacturing that 22% they sent to space, to bring the temperature back to the point where it's like "they weren't there" - COOLING it 22%

then when they MAGICALLY MANUFACTURE the 22% they REFRACTED to SPACE
out of NOTHING

these DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED THERM-0-BILLY HICKS THINK
these SAME COLD GASES
warmed the ENTIRE BATH 33 degrees, 

with the believers being too STUPID to know - WHY their calculations are 33 DEGREES off the REAL temperature calculations giving CORRECT global atmospheric temperature.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Do you know why these insipid chimpanzee class, illiterate innumerates don't dare mention their FRAUD to me when I dare them to Dale? 

It's because they KNOW that ALL SOMEBODY HAS to DO to MOCK them to CRINGING SCORN is DARE them to SHOW somebody a

COLD NITROGEN BATH
that WARMED SOMETHING PUT IN IT 33 DEGREES
by 
CONDUCTION CHILLING IT
and STOPPING 22% of the light WARMING the object
FROM ever REACHING and WARMING it. 

Do you know why dale, these ignorant sh** for brains MUTTS don't even know what f***g GAS LAW governs the ATMOSPHERE? 

Because their leaders' SCAMS depend on them not KNOWING about that MANDATORY 33 DEGREE SHORTFALL

when SOMEONE claims to have calculated the temperature of COMPRESSIBLE PHASE FLUIDS, not accounting for 
 the COMPRESSION Gas Law is WRITTEN to SOLVE for.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Dale this is why EVERY SINGLE TIME you TALK to one of these STUPID SIMPERING KooKs

and you mention COUNTING, to see what happens to the 22% missing sunlight
SUBTRACTED OFF the TOP

of SURFACE TEMP CALCULATION by the

COOLING GHGs

EVERY last ONE starts TYPING what looks like would be the noise a trannie hooker making a film in Brazil would sound like, if she was GARGLING DONKEY B*LLS.

"WayLe, YEW ain't rillie NEVUR SOALD NO SHEWS in a MAWL HAVE YA?" WUNTS YEW SALE SHEWS in a MAWL, YEW GIT REEL
REELE,
CLIMITTIE.

YEW kin FIGUR OWT how thim MAGICAL GAISSINESS dun made uh COLD NITCHURGIN BATH, git HODDURN'HODDUR
with
MOAR LIGHT COMING OWT,
evur time thim magical gaissiness dun LET LESS GO IN! YaW!"

 The KOOK sh** they'll try to pull out of their shirtfront drooling a#$ is non-stop self HUMILIATION.

Can you IMAGINE
telling ADULTS on the INTERNET, - or better yet in PERSON:

that some people had TALKED with yew
and dun SHOWED YEW the....criddickul peer review YaW,
bowt how
SOME BODIE DUN PUT THIM some COLD, LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERANTS,
into a
COLD NITROGEN BATH,

and thim SIGNTSIE UNDURSTANDIDNZ dun SHOW'T THIM HOW
YEW kin TAKE 22 PUR SINT uv the LIGHT
out of a
LIGHT WARMED ROCK,
and THIN, if'n yew's REALLIE REALLIE CLIMITTIE an BUhLEEAViN,

EVUR TIME that tair magical gaissiness, dun MADE

UH NUTHUR PUR SINT LIGHT
NOT GO IN,
UH
NUTHUR PUR SINT,
dun COME OWT,
thin SOME MOAR PUR SINT DID! "
YaW!"

Can you IMAGINE, Dale, telling people that OH YEAH,
it makes PERFECT SENSE to YOU,
that

EVUR time yew STOP uh FEW MOAR PUR SINT LIGHT
frum evur GITTIN in a ROCK
it's NACHURAL
fur MOAR and MOAR PUR SINT
to START COMIN OWT!"

Oh YEAH, they're flitting around with a drink, telling everybody "Hay, has yew bin dun tol't abowt the MAGICALNESS
of the GAiSSiNESS?

Sitting down with each other testifying "HaYLE YEAH, ain't NUTHIN RAWNG with THAT!

It's a badge of PRIDE to them that they're so fu**n stupid. They think it's a ''special signtsie understandinz grewp" of

''LEET THEENKURZ."

Tryin to git yew to BuLEEVE that
every time INSULATION
makes 
LESS LIGHT go in a ROCK,
SENSORS and MATHEMATICS
 show
MORE LIGHT come out of the ROCK.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

You can practically hear the magic gas barking QuaCK-uh-ZoiDS chipping the enamel off their teeth nervously chewing their boogers, 

trying to find SOME way to HIDE the fact THEY GOT CAUGHT BARKING a COLD NITROGEN BATH,
makes a LIGHT-WARMED ROCK it's CONDUCTION CHILLING,

WARMER than "IF THAIR WARN'T NO COALD NIGHTCHURGIN BAYUTH, YaW!" I thought I should quote DIRECTLY from the "literature." 

The "bodie uv signtific litchurchur whut dun cunfurm'd it: the less light warms a rock,(ifn' ye'ws warmin it less with thim BACKURDISTICAL GLIMMERiNZ, YaW,) thuh MOAR dun COME OWT!"

"Now AT'TaiR
IS sum MAGiCKuL, MaGiCaL, GAiSSiNiSS!"

YaW.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

You're just a bunch of booger-eating HiCKS who couldn't get hired SELLING SHOES at the MaLL,

and decided to "RE SURCH the COPIEYuS KWAN tuh TEES uv LiTchuRCHuR, bowt how the magical gaissiness,
makes moar light come owt uv uh rock,
evur time,
less dun come in thair, yaW."

May bie it's jist fate I didn't git that job, so I kin git in two my intaLeckCHuL SeLF..."
Yaw.

Havin thim..
DEAP THAWTS.

uh bowt uh powurful, POWURFUL
Backerdistical GLiMMeRiN whut's dunPUZZL't SiGHNTiSTS
fur SiNTCHuReeS.

Furst yew take yew uh.... SPESHUL gaissiness,
and thin yew theenk, REEALE HARD,
and furst thang ya know,

BACKURDiSMS!

And THIN yew kin UNDERSTAND abowt how thim... Climatalogical Backerdisticalisms,
dun made a COALD nightchurgin bath,
uh vuriy and TREWLIE,
magical
wun.

YaW.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Where is your tropospheric hot spot which would be the inevitable result if what you believe were true? Reality doesn't, and never will support you ian...
> ...



That is not where the "consensus" says that the hot spot should be.  Surely you don't think that you are right and the consensus is wrong after all the grief you have given me over exactly that sort of thing.  You have always seemed to argue that the consensus is right and those of us who don't agree are wackos.  Or does that only apply so long as the consensus actually agrees with you?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen.....go develop your communication skills...learn to speak in coherent sentences and give people at least some idea of what sort of point you are trying to make in less than 3,000 words spread across 6 or 8 posts.  Learn that name calling in the absence of any coherent argument is the surest way to have people simply ignore what you say.

And for pete's sake...don't claim that you are an engineer of any sort other than perhaps a domestic engineer or a janitorial engineer...most everyone here knows that as one travels the path to a degree in engineering, a fair amount of time is spent learning the art of technical writing, since so much time will be spent in the course of their career doing exactly that.  Communicating complex ideas in a manner that people who don't have their education will understand exactly what they hell they are talking about.  The very definition of technical writing is simplifying the complex.

If you were trying to communicate an idea to a customer and kept barking about cold nitrogen baths somehow altering the global temperature your customer with rightly assume that you were not only barking mad, but got your degree from a vending machine, then they would probably sue you to get back any money they had paid you, and look for someone who could get the job they needed done and communicate their findings in a coherent manner and spread the word to any potential customer that you were piss poor at your job and that they shouldn't hire you even to sweep hair at a barber shop.  In today's world, professionals know that individuals on social media can destroy a reputation in short order so courtesy, effectiveness, and professionalism are the watchwords.

Work on your communication skills if you want to actually talk to people on this board,  We may not agree with each other, but at least most of us try to speak in an understandable manner and actually attempt to get our ideas across.  Further, we try to explain what we are thinking rather than simply assuming that someone else knows what we are thinking...terms like cold nitrogen bath out in the open atmosphere mean nothing and no one, my self included, knows what the hell you are talking about.

So when you learn to communicate a bit more effectively, I for one, will be glad to talk to you, but I am not going to spend any appreciable amount of time trying to figure out what the hell point you are trying to make if you either won't, or can't make it clear.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You ducked out yesterday. What do you believe the definition of "Ambient Temperature" to be? It's what it always was, the sum of all the light striking the surface of matter, plus any conduction transfer through something it's sitting on


SSDD said:


> Allen.....go develop your communication skills...learn to speak in coherent sentences and give people at least some idea of what sort of point you are trying to make in less than 3,000 words spread across 6 or 8 posts.  Learn that name calling in the absence of any coherent argument is the surest way to have people simply ignore what you say.
> 
> And for pete's sake...don't claim that you are an engineer of any sort other than perhaps a domestic engineer or a janitorial engineer...most everyone here knows that as one travels the path to a degree in engineering, a fair amount of time is spent learning the art of technical writing, since so much time will be spent in the course of their career doing exactly that.  Communicating complex ideas in a manner that people who don't have their education will understand exactly what they hell they are talking about.  The very definition of technical writing is simplifying the complex.
> 
> ...



You ran out yesterday claiming "I wasn't speaking to you any more so I must have left" while you sat there HOURS unable to make your hand reach over and grab the mouse and start testifying of your church where there's no such thing as ambient temperature.

I don't give a rat's @#$ if you try to tell me God, fresh back from the bar last night, with her heels in her hand smelling like Tequila, told you that you'll be the judge of who's an Engineer and who's so stupid they think if you shine a flashlight at the sun no light will come out because "radiation can't go toward something emitting light more energetic than itself.

Tell these people what you think the definition of ambient temperature is. Tell them all because you, who have never shadowed a seat in a general thermodynamics class, have decided you understand the most because nobody can convince you a warm rock in a box in antarctica glowing ten watts, and one in Phoenix glowing ten watts, will ever be the temperature of the light glowing off the walls of that box PLUS ten watts.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

And another thing: you're not a customer you're the FAKE I caught telling people that if "If yew turn a flashlight own, and point it at thuh sun, thair woant no light come owt uv it, caws thim raydeeyashuns dun cain't go at no hoddurn hoddur." 

You're another shoe peddling armchair physicist so stupid you can't even intuit SUNLIGHT warming a ROCK. 





SSDD said:


> Allen.....go develop your communication skills...learn to speak in coherent sentences and give people at least some idea of what sort of point you are trying to make in less than 3,000 words spread across 6 or 8 posts.  Learn that name calling in the absence of any coherent argument is the surest way to have people simply ignore what you say.
> 
> And for pete's sake...don't claim that you are an engineer of any sort other than perhaps a domestic engineer or a janitorial engineer...most everyone here knows that as one travels the path to a degree in engineering, a fair amount of time is spent learning the art of technical writing, since so much time will be spent in the course of their career doing exactly that.  Communicating complex ideas in a manner that people who don't have their education will understand exactly what they hell they are talking about.  The very definition of technical writing is simplifying the complex.
> 
> ...


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Your job called, SSDD. They said stop telling people on the internet that if you shine a flashlight at the sun, no light will come out because "yew caint make no raydeyayshuns go at no hoddurn'hoddurz"

and to go out, pick up the parking lot and shake off the doormats, 
empty the lobby trash cans, 
clock out, go home, 
wash the grease out of your polyester suit,
and be at work in the morning in time to prep for breakfast.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> You ducked out yesterday. What do you believe the definition of "Ambient Temperature" to be? It's what it always was, the sum of all the light striking the surface of matter, plus any conduction transfer through something it's sitting on



This is a prime example of what I was talking about.  Ambient temperature, when talking about the climate or even the local area in which measurements are being made is the current air temperature —the overall temperature of the outdoor air that surrounds us. In other words, ambient air temperature is the same thing as "ordinary" air temperature. When indoors, ambient temperature is sometimes called _room temperature_.

And more to the point, what idea were you trying to get across that had anything to do with ambient temperature? 




Allen Eltor said:


> You ran out yesterday claiming "I wasn't speaking to you any more so I must have left" while you sat there HOURS unable to make your hand reach over and grab the mouse and start testifying of your church where there's no such thing as ambient temperature.



Actually, I didn't give you another thought.  I had a gig at a local club last night and spent the evening playing sweet sweet blues with a few of my friends.  You once again enetered my mind this morning and I thought that I might tell you why I lost interest in speaking to you. 

Thanks for confirming that I wasn't to short with you and that my initial impression was correct.  And do take note, if you can stop ranting for just a minute, that at present, I am the only person on this board who is even attempting to understand what the hell you are talking about...


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > You ducked out yesterday. What do you believe the definition of "Ambient Temperature" to be? It's what it always was, the sum of all the light striking the surface of matter, plus any conduction transfer through something it's sitting on
> ...



YOUR INITIAL IMPRESSION was that YOU GOT CAUGHT TELLING PEOPLE 

"If YOU POINT YOUR FLASHLIGHT AT the SUN, NO LIGHT will COME OUT, because "THIM PHOTIE THINGS CAIN'T GiT SiNT TWARDS NO HODDURN'mE'iSMs"


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...




*Second Law of Thermodynamics:* It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Tell me Allen...what do you think that statement means with regard to energy from a cooler object moving towards a warmer object?   Do you think the second law of thermodynamics is a rule of thumb or a physical law which actually describes the movement of energy?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > *Second Law of Thermodynamics:* It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...





I asked you a straight forward question...what's the matter Allen?  Afraid to answer?  Afraid to admit that you don't even know what the second law of thermodynamics means?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *Second Law of Thermodynamics:* It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> 
> Tell me Allen...what do you think that statement means with regard to energy from a cooler object moving towards a warmer object?   Do you think the second law of thermodynamics is a rule of thumb or a physical law which actually describes the movement of energy?



You tell me, you're the one who thinks if you shine your flashlight at the sun, no light will come out. 

Go outside, and point your flashlight at the sun. If no light comes out then sure enough, you're the physicist and I'm the guy whose degree in radiation engineering left me believing if I point my flashlight at the sun, some light will come out, when it won't. 

And that when the ground heats up, no infrared energy will come out of it as long as the sun is in that direction.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No, you have STUDIOUSLY AVOIDED ANSWERING any questions 

about how your CLAIM that if you POINT your FLASHLIGHT at the SUN, no LIGHT will come out.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Do you hear yourself telling everyone ''YEW HAS DUN LOOK'T IN TWO the BIG BUK and IT SED that

IF the SUN is to the EAST 

and a FLAT ROCK is facing the SUN,

"CAIN'T no INFURRED come OWT that SIDE, till it's HODDURN' the SUN, 
cause 
yew noes,

"thim photie thangs cain't git sint owt two thim uthurnz what's Hoddur."


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Well? Did any light come out of the flashlight when you pointed it at the sun? We're all waiting, with breath abate, for the big news about how

 "a red l.e.d. won't come on in the sunshine" because 

"the big buk sed, thim coolie thangs, can't sind owt no coolie-glow thangs twards thim uthurns, whats sindin' owt thim hoddie-photies."


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Learn that name calling in the absence of any coherent argument is the surest way to have people simply ignore what you say.


Very ironic. Really, you should take your own advice. 

That is your whole game here with your discarding of 150 years of science, and your caustic responses in place of coherent arguments. (CMB is a resonance frequency??? Jeez)


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

"No light will come out of a flashlight, if you turn it on in the daytime." 

Wow. 

Yew could save a lot on batteries like that, though, I betcha.

LLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLL!


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> "No light will come out of a flashlight, if you turn it on in the daytime."
> 
> Wow.
> 
> ...


That is an excellent point.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Learn that name calling in the absence of any coherent argument is the surest way to have people simply ignore what you say.
> ...



He's outside verifying that "YeP! If'n yew turn a flashlight own in tha DAY-TiYME, won't no light come out of it."


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

He think's he's on the edge of one of the biggest financial breakthroughs in all creeyashun. ''Hot D*MN, SoN!"

 "We got more G-dD*mNeD PH0ToN's than we KNOW WHAT to DO WITH!!

HERE, STuFF SoME uVuM in this DaYLiGHT-PRoof BAiG!!"


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Your batteries don't run down in your flashlight if you point it at the sun and turn it on??


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *Second Law of Thermodynamics:* It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> ...



An engineer...of any discipline would never eve propose such a stupid experiment and expect it to mean anything.  Even the most fleeting though on the topic would tell you thant is is meaningless.  Tell me allen...in watts per square meter, how much energy from the sun is reaching the ground?  Now, consider the temperature of the filament in a flashlight bulb...it is somewhere between 2700 and 3700 degrees kelvin.  that means the temperature of that filament is going to be something between 4500 degrees and 6200 degrees Fahrenheit.  Now, since you claim to be an engineer, what is the output in watts per square meter for an element at a temperature of say 5000 degrees?  Now compare the output of the flashlight to the power of the incoming solar radiation.  See where this is going?

Of course, that energy from the flashlight would never actually reach the sun, but it is easily enough to emit through the incoming radiation from the sun.


Again, no engineer, of any sort would have asked such a stupid assed question and thought that it would inivalidate the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Well I guess he got his feelings hurt. 

ANYWAY, one of you magic gas barking, science darkening dimwit twits was just about to JUMP up on a BAG of BEANS and RICE and start bearin FERVENT TESTIMONY, 

of the

magicalness 
of the
GAiSSiNeSS, 

whut dun turn't uh COALD NIGHTCHuRGiN BaTH, 
in two uh mighty, MiGHTY HEEDuR!


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



YEAH I SEE where this is GOIN: if a ROCK on the ground is FACING the SUN, it won't glow at ALL on that side, until it's HOTTER than the SUN.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Learn that name calling in the absence of any coherent argument is the surest way to have people simply ignore what you say.
> ...



Yank your chain if it gets you through life...I am asking for physical evidence that demonstrates that the statements of the physical laws are mistaken as you claim.  You can't provide any such evidence and it frustrates you...to damned bad.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Every time you speak, you demonstrate that you know even less than your previous comment suggested.  You are talking about visible light.  The light came from a source.  What is the temperature of the source that lit the rock compared to the temperature of the surrounding area in which it is being viewed?  Clearly you don't even have a high school level back ground in science...Hell, a 6th grader could figure that out.  Any time you are speaking about visiblie light, you have to consider the temperature of the light source.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're a dummy. GFY


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Do you have any idea what the connection might be between a cold nitrogen bath and air at ambient temperature?  Any idea at all?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

No? "I ain't clymmidie like yew caws yew dun look't in thuh big buk werds, an' squigglie t?"


SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Actually, I'm not frustrated at all. You're the one who claims yew dun "look't in thuh big buk, and thairs powurf'l thangs cain't be undurstood by hardly nobodie but thim clymmidy'unz

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? ROCKS LAYING ON THE GROUND EMITTING INFRARED TOWARD THE SUN isn't EVIDENCE to YOU? 

LmfaO!!!!!


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Don't be jealous because you're so f***g stupid you thought a cold nitrogen bath is a heater, and that the cold light blocking refrigerants in the bath, were the core of the cold nitrogen heater." 

Get up on that stump and start barking magic gas, chump. I DARE you.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Stop talking like you sustained a brain injury while fighting a deer to the death in the woods with antlers taped to your head.

I ASKED YOU, WHY INFRARED LIGHT IS GOING OUT OF THIS PLANET, TOWARD the SUN. 

Don't PRETEND this is a DANCE OFF, TELL ME HOW LOWER-FREQUENCY LIGHT GLOWS OUT of a ROCK on the GROUND, toward the MUCH HOTTER SUN. 

You insipid "signts uh dum-dum" class genius.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> No? "I ain't clymmidie like yew caws yew dun look't in thuh big buk werds, an' squigglie t?"
> 
> 
> SSDD said:
> ...



Do you understand that there is a difference between energy radiating towards a thing....and energy actally reaching that thing?  Are you able to grasp that because of the distance we are away from the sun, the energy that reaches us is a mere fraction of the energy that is actually leaving the surface of the sun?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > No? "I ain't clymmidie like yew caws yew dun look't in thuh big buk werds, an' squigglie t?"
> ...



STOP DEFLECTING and EXPLAIN to ME,
HOW INFRARED LIGHT CAN GLOW OUT of ROCKS FACING the SUN. 

it's YOUR CLAIM, no ENERGY can TRAVEL TOWARD a WARMER OBJECT. 

Now YOU EXPLAIN THAT. 

"YEW CAIN'T TURN ON NO RED L.E.D. in DAYLIGHT cause WONT NO LIGHT COME OUT!"

DON'T you ACT like EVERYBODY in this FORUM is STUPID but YOU, THERM-0-BILLY, 

YOU EXPLAIN A RED L.E.D. coming on pointed at the SUN in light of YOUR CLAIM, 

that the SECOND LAW TOLD YOU, NOTHING CAN RADIATE ENERGY TOWARD a WARMER OBJECT.

it's WHAT you've been telling these THERM-0-BILLIES with the MAGIC GAS STORY. 

YES it IS.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Let me guess...you think the radiant energy reaching that rock is the same temperarure as it was when it left the surface of the sun....and that till the rock reaches a greater temperature than the sun which is so far away (never mind the inverse square law) it can't radiate if the second law of thermodynamics is actually true?  Is that what you think?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Guess we are done allen...I am not the sort to get any enjoyment out of poking a stick at a caged animal...or make fun of a child.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Guess we are done allen...I am not the sort to get any enjoyment out of poking a stick at a caged animal...or make fun of a child.




You ARE a child, who never shadowed a seat in a thermodynamics class, telling a RADIATION ENGINEER 
no INFRARED LIGHT can LEAK OUT of a ROCK toward the SUN. 

You have REPEATEDLY refused to explain any mechanism that would stop free radiant energy from striking objects warmer than they. 

You have REPEATEDLY tried to tell me that if YOU POINT YOUR RED L.E.D. FLASHLIGHT at the SUN, NO LIGHT comes out of it. 

You have REPEATEDLY tried to tell me that if I have a WARM RESISTOR in a BOX in ANTARCTICA

and in a BOX in PHOENIX, that there is NO WAY the COOLER INFRARED from the BOX WALLS can EVER travel toward something WARMER. 

Because YOU looked it UP on the INTERNET.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



WHAT YOU need to GUESS is HOW you're going to TELL a RADIATION ENGINEER that THERE'S NO RED LIGHT leaking out of a ROCK lying on the GROUND, ANYWHERE on the SUN side.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Now do any of you magic gas barking punks want to talk about your church? Or not. 

He's outside turning that RED L.E.D. FLASHLIGHT on and off to see if light's REALLY coming out in daytime. 

Some DIPF** hiCK was saying something about "And THEN, the COLD NITROGEN BATH, jist SUDDENLY GENERATED the

FULL 22% of INCOMING SUNLIGHT it had REFRACTED to space NEVER to join Earth temp count - the FIRST

22% COOLING by the COOLING green house gases, 

so THIN IT WUZ AWL JIST LIKE THAY WUZN'T EVUN THAIR, makin no light not GIT thair, 

so it was all back up to "REG'LUR TiMPurCHuR like thay wuzn't THAIR"

and THIN, thay dun GIVE AWF ANUTHUR BUNCHA PUR SiNT whut made the HOAL COLD NITROGEN BATH,

TURN in two uh HEEDUR that INSTEAD of COOLIN like THIM UTHURNZ, 

this HEEYUR COLD BATH made the ROCK it wuzza chilliin, 33 DuGREAZ HoddurN'HodduR! YaW!

Which one of you ignorant, innumerate HACKS was TELLING me THAT?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

OH, THAT'S RIGHT, 

YOU ALL WERE. 

Except guitar man who's outside pointing his flashlight at the sun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Of course, that energy from the flashlight would never actually reach the sun, but it is easily enough to emit through the incoming radiation from the sun.*

The filament is hot enough to "overcome the power of the incoming sunlight"?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Incoming sunlight is how many watts per meter?  A filament at 5000 degrees is radiatinig how many watts per meter?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The higher wattage allows the flashlight to "overcome the pressure of the incoming photons"?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



I don't know what he is referring to, no.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Hey. 

GO POINT your RED L.E.D. flashlight, at the SUN again, and come back and TELL us if it comes on in the daytime. 

Take your cat outside and see if it's true that indeed, no heat leaves him headed toward the sun. It can't, because 

CooLieTons, can't go toward things giving off 
HoTTieToNS. 

Yeah. Absolutely. 

What if I point my infared laser toward the sun, will any light come out of the end of it? 

The sun and nearly all it's light is way hotter than my laser, what happens to the laser light? 

Does it just go toward the sun a little bit then veer off? LoL. It's lazed, it can't veer anywhere. 

Does it go toward the sun then just stop in space, like the f**kin' Matrix? 

Just hovering there like a hot chick in leather who's gonna kick the sun's ass, 

but just not ever get any closer, because HoddiePhoties won't let CooliePHoties come near em? 

"Dont come toward me!! EWww!! git BACK CooLie-Pho-Tie-Tons, I'm tellin the second Law!

I'm uh drizzlin HoTTieToNS, yew cain't tuche this!"


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



I'm referring to YOU thinking a cold nitrogen bath is a MAGIC HEATER,
and that the COLD light blocking REFRIGERANTS in the bath,
are the CORE of the COLD NITROGEN HEATER.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD does your red L.E.D. flashlight refuse to turn on if you point it at the sun?

I have a bicycle helmet with some red L.E.D.s that blink when you push the switch.

I'm gonna go outside and point them at the sun and see if any red light comes out brb.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



yes, your laser will emit towards the sun. It emits at a very discrete frequency/wavelength so a great deal depends on what that is. And if the photons from your laser make it out of the atmosphere, they could very well make it all the way to the sun.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I don't think a cold nitrogen bath is a magic heater. I have never posted anything like that. Why do you think a cold nitrogen bath is a magic heater?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

HMMMmmm. Maybe he's right. 


ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Thank you for comforting me, I was afraid all the light was gonna get into the end of my laser, and none would come out till I cleaned out the front end with a cotton swab. 

It says right here on the box, "light cotton swabs" so it's a relief to know I got the right ones.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Don't talk like a crackpot with a social disorder. 

Don't you believe in the magicalness of the gaissiness, what dun turh't uh cold nitrogen bath, into uh HeeDuR?

You believe in Grean Houws Gais Warming don't you? 

If you don't spit it out and I'll exclude you from my estimation that every one of you's a magic gas barking FrootLooP


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

LoL I said "you's".

Like "You's crazy if you think a magical gaissiness doant make a cold bath uh HEEDuR YaW!"


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Yes, I believe increased amounts of greenhouse gases will lead to a warmer atmosphere.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Hey I've got a question for you. Do you believe the atmosphere warms the planet?

My bad it's like you were confessing your belief a cold bath is a heater just as I was asking if you were that stupid. 

Sorry.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...


BWAH HA HA HA HAH HAH HA HA HAH HAH!!!

YOU'RE so F***n FUNNY, no really..

LoL.

What grade did you go to in school?

Omf'nGaia. No you don't. Nobody's so f***n stupid they think 

insulation making less light warm a rock,
causes sensors to show more light warming the rock,
every time more insulation 
makes less light warm the rock.

Only hippies from magazines believe in that KOOK stupid SH**.

Haven't you ever seen ANYONE discuss CALCULATING the TEMPERATURE of the ATMOSPHERE?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



I believe a planet with an atmosphere will have a higher average surface temperature than a planet without an atmosphere, at the same distance from their star.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



So I take it you don't believe in AGW. What leads you to that conclusion?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



REALLY? YOU BELIEVE a COLD BATH,
washing HEAT off a SUN WARMED ROCK,
leaves it WARMER,
than if NO COLD BATH, was CONDUCTION SCRUBBING the ROCK?

That, is f***Ng inCREDiBLE. 

So you have a sun warmed rock, and it's at.. whatever temperature in space, 
and then, when you start WASHING IT with COLD FLUIDS, it's TEMPERATURE
goes UP!

And THEN, when you add light blocking INSULATION to the bath, 
so LESS, and LESS sunlight are REACHING the rock, 
to the point where - now, the cooling GHGs stop 22% of 
otherwise available warming firelight from the sun, 
from ever being counted as part of Earth's
temperature calculations, 

every time MORE insulation, 
lets LESS light reach the SURFACE, 
the TEMPERATURE of the surface, goes UP! 

WoW! 

Every time you let LESS LIGHT WARM the PLANET,
you COUNT in your CALCULATION, MORE light, 
WARMING the PLANET!!

WoW, that must be CLIMIT MATH!

Tell us more, we're absolutely scintillated by this discovery that 
LESS AND LESS LIGHT warming a ROCK,
makes SENSORS and MATHEMATICS show
MORE and MORE LIGHT warming the ROCK!

Hot DaYuM, Uncle EUGeNE, thim's some SLIPP'RY MATHuhMADICKS aint THAY! 

whOOWEE, boy! That IS some MAGICAL GaiSSiNess, AiN'T iT!!


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



EXPLAIN to ME your PERCEPTION of WHAT HAPPENS, every time a COLD BATH, washes ANOTHER WATT from a
LIGHT warmed ROCK...

I want to hear this. Go ahead. Bear bold testimony to me of the ... you know, 
magicalness 
of the
gaissiness, 

what dun made uh cold bath uh HEEDuR..

We're all ears. Eyes. Whatever. Put that ***t to music if you want to.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...




Uh, the fact that COLD FLUID BATHS, chilling SUN WARMED ROCKS, 
they stop 22% of otherwise available warming firelight from warming, 

doesn't warm the rocks the cold baths chill? 

Is that anything you ever heard of? 
Cold baths 
don't make things they are chilling get warmer, 
they make them get cooler?

Cold baths don't make things warmer, they make them cooler? You never heard of this?

Cold nitrogen baths, conduction chilling light warmed rocks don't make them warmer? 

No? Never heard of a cold nitrogen bath making something COOLER, only WARMER? 

You are one deluded, magic gas barking therm-o-billy.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Why don't you try an post in plain English so I can figure out what your point is. I assume you mean the earth's surface is the warmed rock and the atmosphere is the cold bath. Is that correct?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Huh? Whatchaw MEEN? YEW jist TELL US,

how EVERY TIME the COOLING green house gases
cause another percent less light to warm the planet, 
magical gaissiness makes sensors show, 
more light warming the planet. 

Don't you tell me how to speak, therm-0-billy, you start tapping out a tune that starts with "FIRST, the COOLING green house gases, stop 22% of otherwise available warming firelight from WARMING the EARTH, 
and THEN, 
the COLD nitrogen ATMOSPHERE TURNS into a HEATER!"


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I find it amusing that Eltor is running circles around you in his own screwball way and beating you at your own game.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Make me believe it when you say it.


Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



He doesn't have a game, 
he's a therm-0-billy HiCK.

Like you. 

Are you gonna start bearing testimony of your church, and about the magicalness of the gaissiness? 

How evur time thim gaissis dun let less light warm a rock,
the MAGICALNESS uh thim GASSiNESSeS,
dun made moar light warm the rock!! 

Start anywhere in your church's teachings you please, Magic Gasser.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



You make no sense. You have some cockamamie theory that the nitrogen in the atmosphere represents some kind of cooling bath. If you have nothing to back up your silly theories, I'm not going to waste my time trying to have a discussion.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> yes, your laser will emit towards the sun. It emits at a very discrete frequency/wavelength so a great deal depends on what that is. And if the photons from your laser make it out of the atmosphere, they could very well make it all the way to the sun.



Actually he should not have chosen an LED or laser as an example because neither are black body radiators. The example of a flashlight with a dim bulb would be a better example because a tungsten filament does radiate BB and is colder than the sun. So it would illustrate that the colder EM energy from a flashlight would not be impeded by the hotter sun like SSDD thinks.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Hay, YAW HAWNGrY Fo


ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Is the ATMOSPHERE made out of NITROGEN you STUPID f**n HICK? 

Is the OXYGEN part pretty much something we don't have to WRITE out LONG HAND every time so you don't
FORGET it's THERE?

Is the ATMOSPHERE COLD?

DO YOU or DO YOU NOT, SHEiSS for BRAINS,

KNOW of a SINGLE instance, in ALL THERMODYNAMICS, when a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH,
WARMED the SUN-WARMED ROCK it was CHILLING.

YES
or
NO?

DO YOU HAVE a DOCUMENTED CASE of PEOPLE conduction CHILLING a LIGHT-WARMED OBJECT,

with a COLD BATH made of NITROGEN and OXYGEN, and this MAKING the WARMER OBJECT'S TEMPERATURE

go UP no DOWN? 

Don't act like you're so f***g BLOWN away to find out the 

ATMOSPHERE is COLDER than the PLANET, by MANY DEGREES, 
 and MADE of NITROGEN 

that you CAN'T even PROCESS BASIC COLD BATH/HOT ROCK functions. 

Don't tell me that even if it's true. Tell me you were just stalling or something.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Hay, YAW HAWNGrY Fo
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Nitrogen 78%, Oxygen 21%, the nitrogen is NOT cool. What is your point?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > yes, your laser will emit towards the sun. It emits at a very discrete frequency/wavelength so a great deal depends on what that is. And if the photons from your laser make it out of the atmosphere, they could very well make it all the way to the sun.
> ...




HE DID NOT SAY, ''SPESHUL BLACK-BODY THIS,  SPESHUL TUNGSTUN FILAMENTS,  SPESHUL ANYTHING," 

HE TOLD ME

that a COOLER OBJECT CAN NOT RADIATE ENERGY TOWARD a WARMER one. 

END of f***n STORY.

And I TOLD HIM he's a DIPSH&* HiCK and YOU are too. 

Are YOU gonna start PREACHING about your CHURCH or NOT?

The COLD NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE
is SECRITLIE A VURRIE VURRIE MAGICAL HEEDUR!!

START ANYWHERE

FINISH UP with:

''And THAT'S how a COLD NITROGEN BATH, 
made a LIGHT WARMED ROCK get WARMER, 
every LESS LIGHT WARMED the ROCK!! YaW!!

And we'll call it good.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > Hay, YAW HAWNGrY Fo
> ...



OH! THE ATMOSPHERE, is NOT COLDER, than the PLANET.

WHO the F*** on this (planet) TOLD YOU THAT STUPID SH**??

TELL me THEIR NAME or YOU'RE the lying m****rf******r who MADE that FAKE sh** UP.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Depends on where you go in the atmosphere. Higher means cooler, to a point. Then it gets hotter again


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

I wonder how stupid's doing out there with his L.E.D. flashlight? 

"Yew see that black cat ovur thair? Wea bin doin Our SPEaRMiNTs checkin to see if any light comes out of STUFF when the SUN'S OUT and NEAR as I KiN TALE, 

EVUR TIME a CAR'S TAIL LIGHTS POINTS to the SUN, doan't no LIGHT come out of em,

and as LONG as that CAT sits in the SUN, cain't no LIGHT come out uh IT NEETHUR. 

Least not hedded two the SUN.

He's busy transforming into a Jr CLIMATE SLEUTH!!"


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Don't you sit here and tell me two stories in 20 minutes hillbilly. Is the average TEMPERATURE of THE ATMOSPHERE at large,
LOWER than the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET it's WASHING HEAT off of, or NOT?

We can take three days while you face up to the fact the atmosphere is a COLD NITROGEN FLUID BATH, therm-0-billy.

It's up to you how painful it is for your stupid #$%.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



If you think that is happening, then you are as far out there as him...


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The only person FAR OUT is YOU outside pointing your flashlight at the sky to see if any light comes out of it, hick.

What happened to the SIDEWALK OUT THERE did INFRARED LIGHT STOP COMING OUT OF IT when the SUN was OVERHEAD?

You insipid sh** for brains TWiT.

You need to answer for your KooK-TaRD blankin CLAIMS, HiLLBiLLy. 

IS ANY INFRARED LIGHT COMING OUT of THAT SIDEWALK when the SUN'S overhead.

DID IT STOP COMING OUT when the SUN shined on it, 

LIKE YOUR KooK CLAIM 

PREDICTED? 

Answer me, YES or NO.

DID INFRARED LIGHT stop LEAVING the ROADWAY outside when the SUN got OVERHEAD?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > yes, your laser will emit towards the sun. It emits at a very discrete frequency/wavelength so a great deal depends on what that is. And if the photons from your laser make it out of the atmosphere, they could very well make it all the way to the sun.
> ...



Try considering the inverse square law before you jump to erroneous conclusions.  You are dealing with 1300wm2 at the top of the atmosphere....what does a filament at 5000 degrees radiate?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

mORE TWiTCHiNG, and SQUIRMING


SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



What does a rock laying on the ground radiate, dipsh**? 

What's the back of a black cat sitting in the sun radiate,

while it's watching you trying to figure out if the sun makes light stop coming out of your flashlight?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



I think the average temperature in the atmosphere is lower than the average surface temp. Do you think that negates AGW somehow? Please tell us how that works. The atmosphere does not represent a cold nitrogen bath.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD: WHAT the F*** do you think HAPPENS to LIGHT, that EMITS from some LOW temperature object, 

and it's TRAVELING across the UNIVERSE, and a STAR moves in the way? 

Aint nuthin like that nevur happened? 

Thim moon beems jist turn and go the uthur way?

Did your red l.e.d. flashlight stop turning on when it's pointed at the sun like you predict? 

Does your cat stop glowing infrared off it's fur when the sun's directly overhead? 

Only giving off heat above and to the West in the morning,

and only giving off heat to the East and above, in the evening,

and only out to the sides, in the middle of the day stupid? 

LLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLL!

'"THAT CAT ONLY GLOWS OUT to the SIDES in the AFTERNOON!"

bwaH Ha HAH HA ha Ha HA Ha Hah HaH!! 

WHAT a f***n DUFUS LoL !


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...




The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath you illiterate dipstick. Have YOU been under the ROCK SSDD claims can't give off any infrared as long as the sun's out? 

When you CALCULATE the AVERAGE ENERGY CONSTANT of AIR 
you USE the ENERGY CONSTANTS 
of NITROGEN and OXYGEN. 

COLD NITROGEN
and
COLD OXYGEN
comprise ALMOST ALL the ATMOSPHERE. 

We have a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN ATMOSPHERE.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



OBVIOUSLY you're suffering from some kind of nearly permanent learning disability like Mr My Flashlight Won't Come On in the Daytime.

You've got major problems if you're unable to verify for yourself the atmosphere is on average many degrees colder than the planet, and is made almost entirely of Nitrogen and Oxygen.

When scientists count up the temperature of the Earth what is the first thing they check?

They check to see how much light is striking the surface, don't they.

When they start off with one value at the top of the atmosphere,
and wind up with another value about 22% lower at the SURFACE,

WHAT in YOUR estimation, HAPPENED to NEARLY a QUARTER of the sun's
otherwise available warming firelight spectra?

In other words we know it didn't reach the surface but what happened to it?

We most CERTAINLY don't COUNT that part - the difference between the TOP of atmosphere

and the bottom.

We start with ONE wattage at the TOP,
then at the SURFACE, we have a LOWER wattage don't we.

WHAT MADE that LIGHT not REACH the SURFACE?

This is your story about how a cold nitrogen oxygen bath is a heater so - you can at LEAST help
with WHAT you THINK MADE that LIGHT not WARM the PLANET.

Find out how many watts difference there are,
and WHAT makes those energy spectra NEVER WARM the PLANET.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Yes, most of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen. And as you and I agree, the atmosphere is warmer at the surface than it is at altitude. How can that be? You seem to omit a great deal of what is happening in the atmosphere. Condensation and evaporation of water. Convective effects and the different gas molecules interacting. Somehow, your cold nitrogen gets warmed up. You need to figure out how that happens.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



The lower energy received at the surface is the result of absorption in the atmosphere - dust, water vapor, ozone. And that does warm the planet - the molecules that absorb the incoming solar energy warm the surrounding gases.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



No, YOU need to figure it out. MY first career was as an ATMOSPHERIC and Environmental  CHEMIST.

IS the ATMOSPHERE a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH?

YES it IS. 

IS the COLD NITROGEN BATH, 
many degrees COLDER than 
the SURFACE of the rocky PLANET it's CONDUCTION CHILLING?

OF COURSE 
it IS. 

When a WARM OBJECT is being WASHED by a COLD NITROGEN BATH, what HAPPENS to the OBJECT? 

Let's see if you can bring yourself to say the words: "COLD NITROGEN BATHS, COOL the ROCKS they're CONDUCTION SCRUBBING ENERGY FROM."

Can you say those words? "COLD NITROGEN BATHS scrubbing LIGHT WARMED ROCKS are NOT HEATERS." 

Can you say that?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Wrong answer again, stupid, when the LIGHT BLOCKED BY THE ATMOSPHERE is COUNTED
it's E.N.T.I.R.E. V.A.L.U.E. is C.O.M.P.L.E.T.E.L.Y. REMOVED from EARTH'S TEMPERATURE ACCOUNTING.

That's why you TAKE IT ALL 
OUT OF THE COMPUTATION
OF PLANET SURFACE TEMP.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



I don't give a fuck what your career was because you don't seem to know what you are talking about. You are locked into this silly idea that the 78% of the atmosphere that is nitrogen somehow represents a cold bath. You are wrong, Answer me this. What will happen when you introduce three different gases at three different temperatures into a container? What will happen to the temperatures of each of the gases?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Yes, most of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen. And as you and I agree, the atmosphere is warmer at the surface than it is at altitude. How can that be? You seem to omit a great deal of what is happening in the atmosphere. Condensation and evaporation of water. Convective effects and the different gas molecules interacting. Somehow, your cold nitrogen gets warmed up. You need to figure out how that happens.



How can that BE? Because it's the SURFACE of the EARTH, WARMING the ATMOSPHERE.

There's also some compression warming. THAT'S how that is.

How did you THINK it happened? You're not really familiar with this?

The atmosphere is warmed by the sun, VERY little.

Nearly ALL the heating of the atmosphere
happens when the
COLD NITROGEN BATH
having the light-warmed planet spin under it at 1,000 mph@ the equator,
scrubs energy from it.[/QUOTE]


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...




Here is a really good discussion of the earth's heat budget.

Earth’s heat budget and global warming

Read and learn, dingbat. Put that majestic education of yours to work. Learn something.

And I'm outta here


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



THE ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE as a MIX is MANY DEGREES COLDER on AVERAGE than the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET, HiCK, THIS ISN'T COMPLICATED.

It's referred to as a NITROGEN BATH because it's SHORTER and it REMINDS your STUPID ASS

that no matter WHAT you SQUEAL about CALLING IT,

it's an 80/20 COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH. NO NEGOTIATION.

FULL F***N STOP.

It's a COLD, TURBULENT, 80/20 NITROGEN/OXYGEN BLEND, BATH.

END of STORY, M****rf****R.

And it's MANY DEGREES COOLER than the PLANET it's CHILLING.

Not MAYBE, Not SORTA, not JUST on THURSDAYS, Not when the CHAIRMAN
JIGGLES the Yuan, so he can PICK up that SEXY little property down on the  HARBOR,
the CAPITALISTS are FALLING all OVER each other ABOUT.

It's a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH,
CONDUCTION CHILLING the ROCKY
SUN WARMED PLANET.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



YOU'RE OUTTA HERE because YOU got CAUGHT being SO STUPID 

YOU DIDN'T KNOW the ATMOSPHERE is a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH,

CONDUCTION CHILLING the SUN-WARMED PLANET.

HICK.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



You need to hurry and wash your Taco suit and find your paper hat so you can get to your shift.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



NO, no No NO NO, don't you even START. EVERY WATT of that ENERGY not REACHING the SURFACE
is
DIRECTLY
and PERMANENTLY REMOVED from CALCULATION of EARTH'S SURFACE TEMP.

The actual STEP: is ITSELF: to FIND out how much gets BLOCKED by the ATMOSPHERE
and IMMEDIATELY REMOVE
the ENTIRE VALUE of EVERY single WATT
from EARTH'S SURFACE TEMPERATURE.

Now: WHAT is the REASON the VAST and I do mean vast majority of it
NEVER ARRIVES? Go GET a CHART of Sunlight TOP of ATMOSPHERE
vs @ Mean Sea Level

and TELL us all WHY that LIGHT never WARMS Earth.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Congrats dipstick...you managed to chase off everyone who has tried to talk to you with your crazy.  On this board, even when we don't agree with each other, we speak in coherent sentences and if someone doesn't understand what we are trying to say...we make an attempt to explain it....and I don't think many here pretend to be something that we aren't...  If you were ever an engineer, it was before your catastrophic brain injury.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Congrats dipstick...you managed to chase off everyone who has tried to talk to you with your crazy.  On this board, even when we don't agree with each other, we speak in coherent sentences and if someone doesn't understand what we are trying to say...we make an attempt to explain it....and I don't think many here pretend to be something that we aren't...  If you were ever an engineer, it was before your catastrophic brain injury.



Is your FLASHLIGHT COMING ON AGAIN now the SUN went DOWN stupid?


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

I bet you thought you were gonna save LOADS on batteries just using that flashlight to look for something

when you thought you lost it in the direction the sun was in, huh...

Illiterate,
Innumerate,
therm-0-billy HiCK.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Whenever your balls drop and you think you can  come in here and describe the mechanism 
by which you think the sidewalk doesn't give off infrared light when the sun's overhead shining on it, 
you let us know. 

We'll all be thrilled to hear about that sh**.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Hey Todd are you one of the Backerdism KooKS who thinks if you point your laser pointer at the sun no light will come out?

I think you are.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 7, 2018)

Any one of the rest of you illiterate hicks wanna jump up on a sand bag and bair poWuRFuL TESTiMONY
of the
magicalness
of the
gaissiness

what dun
yew no,

TuRN'T uh COALD NITCHURGIN BATH in TWO uh HEEDUR?

TELL  US ALL ABOUT IT, THERM-0-BILLIES,
how EVUR TIME we
PUT some more GREAN HOWSE GAiSSiS,

up in thim ATMuSFEARS,
makin
another one uh thim percints light
not git two Earth,

all the MATH, an EVURTHANG, points RIGHT two it,
that MOAR and MOAR LIGHT comes OUT uv it.

Yaw.

"I doan't thank yew undurstand MiSTuR, JIST CAWS thuh ATMUSFEARiC BATH,
 is MADE OWT uv COALD NITCHURGIN,
DOAN'T MEEN,
IT'S a
COALD NITCHuRGiN BATH!! yEW jist SAYIN THAT, so I CAiN'T BE THiNKiN CLYMIDeE!!

Yew makin mea thank STRANJE THAWTS abowt a COLD NITCHURGIN BATH,
NOT
BEiN' uh HEEDuR!!!

Yew MAKIN mea CRAZIE, I dun GOT CLIMIT FEARS,
yew PERSAKEWT'N ME, 
I'm uh CLIMIT REFYEWGEA!! Up in here!

STOP TELLIN ME a COLD NITROGEN BATH'S not a HEATER!!
"mmmMMMMMMMmmmmmMMMMMM i cain't HERE YEW,
TELLIN ME A COLD NITCHURGIN BATH AINT uh HEEDuRRrr!!!!"
"MMMmmmmMMMmmmMMMMmmmmm!!!!"

That's what you insipid BackurdsBerries sound like.

"I cain't HERE YEW, TELLIN ME a COLD NITCHURGIN BATH, AIN'T uh HEEDUR,"

"It AIN'T PURGRESSIVE two THiNK THADDaWaY!!"

Yeah. 

Just get up on the stump and start barkin about magic gas, THuRM-0-BiLLY. 
Break's over.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...





SSDD said:


> Try considering the inverse square law before you jump to erroneous conclusions. You are dealing with 1300wm2 at the top of the atmosphere....what does a filament at 5000 degrees radiate?



Where is the inverse square law ever mentioned in the SB equation?

Actually Allen Elton had a good counterexample. A refrigerated LED pointer can be seen emitting a beam toward a hot screen. That is an example of energy flowing spontaneously from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object. So, the only reasonable interpretation of the word “energy” is that it refers to heat energy, not EM radiation.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



I went to cut the grass. Funny, I must have missed that nice cool nitrogen bath and I got hot and sweaty. And the thermometer at the front of my house, in the shade, said 80F. How can that be?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> You need to hurry and wash your Taco suit and find your paper hat so you can get to your shift.



BLOME

And You need to provide some links that support your silly theory.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Do some studying, Elton. The atmosphere is very complex. You seem to be missing some key factors. And tighten the loose screws a bit, EH?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Where is the inverse square law ever mentioned in the SB equation?



Are you operating under the impression that the energy reaching the earth is equal in watts per square meter to the energy leaving the surface of the sun?



Wuwei said:


> Actually Allen Elton had a good counterexample. A refrigerated LED pointer can be seen emitting a beam toward a hot screen. That is an example of energy flowing spontaneously from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object. So, the only reasonable interpretation of the word “energy” is that it refers to heat energy, not EM radiation.



You get more ridiculous every time you speak.....what exactly do you think is spontaneous about a light bulb?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the inverse square law ever mentioned in the SB equation?
> ...



*what exactly do you think is spontaneous about a light bulb? *

Or the walls of my home in winter.


----------



## MPS777 (Jul 7, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Actually, I'm not frustrated at all. You're the one who claims yew dun "look't in thuh big buk, and thairs powurf'l thangs cain't be undurstood by hardly nobodie but thim clymmidy'unz
> 
> PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? ROCKS LAYING ON THE GROUND EMITTING INFRARED TOWARD THE SUN isn't EVIDENCE to YOU?



Good example.  And I think you deserve a PhD in linguistics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the inverse square law ever mentioned in the SB equation?
> ...


The italics indicate thermodynamic definitions copied from the web:

_A *spontaneous process* is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state. _​
An LED flashlight releases *free energy* in a battery. 

_*The thermodynamic free energy* is the amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform. The concept is useful in the thermodynamics of chemical or thermal processes _​
The battery is a spontaneous chemical process. 

_*Energy* is a generalization of free energy_​
One wording of the second law:

_*Energy *will not flow *spontaneously *from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. _​
A beam from a cooled LED flash light is a spontaneous release of energy. If the beam is aimed at a hot screen it is energy flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

As you say, that could seem ridiculous. Does it make a mockery of the second law?
No. In this flashlight counterexample the second law is obeyed because the free energy of the battery is dissipating which increases entropy, and the hot screen cools because the feeble energy from the flashlight can't keep it warm, and heat of the nearby hotter screen warms the flashlight.

There is no interpretation of any of the words of the second law here because standard thermodynamic definitions are used. 

It is only apparently ridiculous because "energy" *must not refer to photons. It must refer to heat *in that context of the second law. By the same token two way radiation exchange between objects is allowed.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Why don't one of you Backerdism Barking Bat Brained Bumblers tell me how you insipid hicks can't even calculate the temperature of our global atmosphere right?
> 
> HOW DO YOU MANAGE TO CALCULATE the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET and COME UP 33 DEGREES SHORT?
> oH
> ...



You are a babbling buffoon. Your cold nitrogen theory is a steaming pile of horses**t.

SHOW US THE PHYSICS!!!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



There are a lot of words which apply to people who think they have found a way around the second law of thermodynamics, a loophole in the second law of thermodynamics, or a form of energy that is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics.   Chump, lunkhead, dope, nitwit, ignoramus, nitwit, and simpleton to name a few.  Probably the most accurate word is wrong.  It takes a special kind of stupid to believe you have either gotten around the second law, found a loop hole in it,  or discovered that it doesn't apply to every form of energy we know of or can imagine.  And you doing a happy dance, giving high fives with the likes of Allen Eltor exemplifies that special sort of stupid.  The very fact that you want to be right so badly that you would hop on up on the crazy train with Allen because you though he might be on to something is, in empirical evidence of how stupid, and blind, your wish to be right has made you.

Let me reiterate, when someone seems to have found a way around the second law, or a loophole in it, or some form of energy that appears to be exempt, the first, and only thought you need have on the topic is that they are wrong.  You may not see on the surface how they are wrong, the reasons they are wrong may be beyond your education, beyond your scope of knowledge, counterintuitive, or even beyond your ability to understand even if you had all the information...but wrong none the less.  No one beats the second law of thermodynamics.

Lets look at all the ways you were wrong.  The most glaring is that you jumped on the crazy train with Allen...but we will chalk that one up to an irrational desire to be right even if it means you have to believe the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.



Wuwei said:


> An LED flashlight releases *free energy* in a battery.



What, exactly do you think is spontaneous about a battery.  While it contains free energy..that is energy that can be used to do work, how did the energy get there?  Was work done to put that energy in the battery?



Wuwei said:


> The battery is a spontaneous chemical process.



Is it your desire to be right that makes you stupid, or is it that you really know so little about science.  A spontaneous process is one that will occur WITHOUT any energy input from its surroundings...ie a process that will occur on its own.  A bowling ball will roll down a hill, ice will melt and the water will flow downhill...a piece of iron will rust.  All spontaneous processes.

A non spontaneous process, on the other hand, must have energy added from some source in order for the process to occur.  Tell me wuwei, where do you think the energy in the battery came from?  How did it get there?


_


Wuwei said:



			ENERGY is a generalization of free energy
		
Click to expand...


Do you really think that physical laws are written in general terms?  Do you think that perhaps the first law of thermodynamics is also only talking about free energy...doesn't the statement that energy can be transformed from one from to another kind of clue you in that insofar as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned, energy is energy no matter what form it may take?  Again...irrational desire to be right, or near total ignorance on the basics of thermodynamics?  Could it be that you just go out and read stuff about thermodynamics regarding the topic at hand and never bothered to look at the basics?....never had any interest in learning the topic...just trying to satisfy your irrational need to be right?


_


Wuwei said:


> A beam from a cooled LED flash light is a spontaneous release of energy. If the beam is aimed at a hot screen it is energy flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.



First, was some work done to release that energy?  Maybe you could apply force times distance to the finger that pushed the switch.  Second the energy moving to the bulb was not there due to a spontaneous process since it required work to put the energy in there in the first place.  Just because the work required to put the energy in the battery was finished, does not mean that it can be ignored.    Then there is the fact that you really don't know much about LED's.  Honestly, neither do I.  They aren't very intuitive, but information is there to be found if you bother to look.  The fact that you specifically named a cooled LED must mean that you at least found out that an uncooled LED would't work in your argument...but the fact that it is a cooled LED should have clued you into the fact that since it is cooled, you are adding in yet another thing that disqualifies this energy movement as spontaneous.

This is the part that is terribly interesting but counterintuitive and you really wouldn't know about unless this sort of thing was how you made your living , or bothered to look up just to make sure your argument was valid before you stated it in public. 

As LEDs are cooled, they begin to steal energy from their environment. Who would have thought?  I suppose steal isn't really the accurate word because as they are cooled to a temperature lower than that of their surroundings, energy from their environment would naturally move toward the cooler LED and this energy is converted into more photons.  The process is not intuitive and pretty difficult to understand what with energy from not only the battery, but the environment itself being converted into photons..and the thermodynamic accounting that goes on involves a level of math that is beyond my ability...but the engineers working on the project assure us that at the end of the balance sheet, the neither Cooled LEDs or uncooled LEDs are flipping their proverbial noses at the second law of thermodynamics.

And of course, work is being done in order to convert all this energy from whatever source into photons which puts the brakes on any part of this is a spontaneous movement of energy.

So no...you have not provided an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object.  The word energy certainly does apply to photons since photons are by definition, the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation possible and in order to claim that the second law of thermodynamics does not cover photons, you would have to say that it does not cover radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays since whenever we observe any of these forms of energy we are observing them in the form of photons...if you believe in photons...Personally, I think they move in waves with properties we are as of yet unaware, but I digress.  Photons are certainly governed by the second law of thermodynamics as is every other form of energy or potential energy we know of.

Two things:

1. Anyone who thinks he has found a way around the second law....a loophole in the second law...or a form of energy that is exempt from the second law is WRONG, whether you can immediately see where they are wrong or not.

2.  Don't jump on the crazy train with someone who is clearly a nut...they speak all sorts of crazy with absolute conviction.  Use your brain...they are clearly either to lazy or not able to use theirs.

Thanks for the laugh though...the visual of you and allen doing the inzone happy dance doing high fives over finding a loophole in the second law and discovering that radio, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays and gamma rays were all exempt from the second law because the second law wasn't talking about photons is priceless.

And you should question your buds...ask them why they didn't get you to delete that ridiculous post before it became engraved on the public record.  Never mind...toddster has an irrational desire to be right as well..and he never checks anything.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Sorry, fool. You are very confused. Enjoy your ignorance.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> YOU TOLD the MEMBERS of THIS INTERNATIONAL FORUM LIGHT FROM COLDER OBJECTS CAN'T GO TOWARD WARMER OBJECTS REPEATEDLY.



Actually, I have said that energy from cool objects can't move to a warmer object spontaneously.  Not that I would expect for you to see the distinction.  Get some basic help with language and maybe some day we can all figure out what the hell a cold nitrogen bath has to do with the atmosphere.  I understand you not wanting to come right out and say it...it must be profoundly ridiculous.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > YOU TOLD the MEMBERS of THIS INTERNATIONAL FORUM LIGHT FROM COLDER OBJECTS CAN'T GO TOWARD WARMER OBJECTS REPEATEDLY.
> ...


REPEATEDLY you have TRIED to PRESENT the CLAIM that ENERGY from THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE CAN NOT GO TOWARD the WARMER PLANET, - NO? 

YOU NEED to PRESENT your MECHANICS for "LIGHT from COLD THINGS can't GO TOWARD LIGHT from WARM THINGS and CONTRIBUTE to THEIR TEMPERATURE. 

YES, it CAN. 

TELL these PEOPLE where YOU got the IDEA that POSTING the SECOND LAW REPEATEDLY helps you put forth some CONCRETE and REAL CONCEPT you would like to EXPLAIN regarding the SUN/EARTH/ATMOSPHERE COMPLEX.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

Go learn the word spontaneous...you could make it your word of the day.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

You aren't listening....Go learn the word spontaneous...lean the definition and then be able to use it in a sentence...Scratch the sentence...I will give you one.  It is the second law of thermodynamics...

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow *spontaneously* from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



The atmosphere is primarily a mixture of two gases, nitrogen and oxygen, plus much smaller amounts of argon, CO2, CH4, H2O, and dust. Some of these things will absorb and radiate photons. Some of them reflect incoming solar radiation. They are all influenced by convection. Atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude and the atmosphere becomes less dense, and it gets colder.

So now tell us, what is the temperature of this cold nitrogen bath at the surface? And what are the light blocking refrigerants?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



I don't understand you. You don't make sense. I'm done with this discussion.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You aren't listening....Go learn the word spontaneous...lean the definition and then be able to use it in a sentence...Scratch the sentence...I will give you one.  It is the second law of thermodynamics...
> ...



Or there is the option of just looking it up in the dictionary...

spontaneous- adj.-  occurring, produced, or performed through natural processes without external influences


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Hardly a discussion...but now it is a cold oxy-nitrogen bath.  Sounds like the sort of thing you could sell at exclusive spas for hundreds of dollars per session.  Just make up some benefits, have a fabricator whip up a futuristic pod which your customer steps in for the "treatment" and laugh all the way  to the bank.

Maybe you could claim that it alleviates the effects climate change has on the body.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 8, 2018)

That's ok with me, I actually don't demean you trying to become a more technically competent man, I just am not gonna have you tell me light leaking out of an object because of ambient field concentrations allowing it and then "magical turnings aside" by light happen when they're headed toward a bluer object.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> There are a lot of words which apply to people who think they have found a way around the second law of thermodynamics



The first words of your post are a total lie. I clearly told you that even though photons from a colder object hit the warmer object, the flashlight counterexample *does not violate the second law*. Try understanding why that is the case. I used the *accepted physics definitions* in that example. You use your own invalid definitions. Science wins. You lose.

I knew your response would be caustic invectives. 
Here is a summary of your post:
_Chump, lunkhead, dope, nitwit, ignoramus, nitwit, and simpleton
special kind of stupid
special sort of stupid
crazy train
stupid, and blind
on the crazy train
makes you stupid
know so little about science
irrational desire
near total ignorance
irrational need to be right
crazy train
clearly a nut
all sorts of crazy
Thanks for the laugh_​
You got so emotional about it that you missed or ignored the most important point. 
*The flashlight counterexample does not violate the second law*.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Go learn the word spontaneous...you could make it your word of the day.


You should take your own advise.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 8, 2018)

JJ this con was originally ALL done inside COMPUTERS. NOBODY KNEW it was so TRANSPARENTLY FAKE

until interest in environmentalism created by Al Gore had everyone DEMANDING to see these people's ACTUAL 

COMPUTER PROGRAMS and ACTUAL CLAIMS. 

They claim the GREEN HOUSE GASES
as you CLEARLY SEE the SOLE class reducing sunlight to the planet

are spontaneously GENERATING that ENTIRE 22% of the sun's energy so it's like they didn't COOL it 22%

then on top of THAT the scam claims these gases, having simply CREATED 22% of the sun's entire energy 

not explaining or showing anybody any math like when you OBVIOUSLY COUNT ALL THAT COOLING, 

they just tell you "well once the entire 22% of the sun's energy is RE GENERATED to OFFSET that

22% COOLING at the start of your computations, 

these gases THEN generate so much energy it WARMS: the ENTIRE PLANET 

AND cold nitrogen/oxygen BATH, an ADDITIONAL, 33 DEGREES.

ALL this to COVER
having NOT included the proper step in GAS law
to account for the atmosphere's 33 DEGREES of COMPRESSION warming,
intrinsic to compressible fluids, and part of the PROCESS of calculating the temperature of the planet RIGHT. 

Like - the INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ATMOSPHERE we CALIBRATE  most of our INSTRUMENTS on the PLANET with. 

Altimiters, 
Thermal sensors,
Pressure,
Humidity, ALL these instruments are CALIBRATED against KNOWN-GOOD atmospheric VALUES or our PLANES wouldn't FLY.

It's ABSURD fraud a form called INVERSION fraud which in a very complicated looking computer program is hard to detect.

START telling the story from THERMODYNAMICALLY ITERATED STEP  to THERMODYNAMIC STEP

and it's OBVIOUS fraud. 

You can teach it to a KID. Does LESS light WARMING a ROCK 
due to more INSULATION making it not GET there and WARM it,
make SENSORS show MORE light warming the rock,
everytime MORE insulation, makes LESS LIGHT warm it? 

Think about how these same government class "scientists" have told the world for EIGHTY YEARS that" That thair pot is the GATE WAY to HEROIN. It's JUST LIKE HEROIN and WORSE for YOU than METHAMPHETAMINE, and WE have got the CRITICAL 
SIGNTIFICK
PEER REVIEW, Two PRUVE it IN COART, YAW!!''

Do you REALLY think that for 80 YEARS, the GOVERNMENT has had proof that WE ALL need to GET OFF POT and ONTO OPIOIDS, because POT makes SOME people get on OPIOIDS,
so EVERYBODY has to GET on OPIOIDS
so POT doesn't make people get on OPIOIDS?

Do you REALLY think that is "un dee nyabul signts, yaW!" 

Do you REALLY believe pot's like heroin because the GOVERNMENT SAYS SO?

Because "senatur in awl my yeeurs i has looktificated and ponderfied about this pot being like heroin and i have two say.. IT RILLIE RILLIE IS. IT'S a DEVLISH and DANGURUS WEAD, makes folks git REEFUR MADNISS.

Do you REALLY believe,
the COLD NITROGEN BATH,
laced with LIGHT BLOCKING REFRIGERANTS,
taking 22% off the TOP of your planetary atmospheric calculations, 

they just SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATED (thanks for the phrase ssdd) 
that SAME amount - 22% of the sun's TOTAL ENERGY, 
so they didn't really TAKE AWAY the 22% you CLEARLY COUNT they DID when you START
and NOW they WARM the ENTIRE BATH, another 33 degrees? 

No JJ.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There are a lot of words which apply to people who think they have found a way around the second law of thermodynamics
> ...



Then you went on to make the claim that  "energy" *must not refer to photons. It must refer to heat *in that context of the second law. By the same token two way radiation exchange between objects is allowed."

To some one whose entire post was to attempt to make the claim that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays, what other words might be useful?  How crazy is that??  When you talk crazy, then words that describe crazy are the only way to describe your speech.

And by the way, you butchered accepted physics definitions...a battery is a spontaneous chemical processs like rust???  Are you kidding?  The second law only applies to free energy but doesn't apply to radio waves, infrared, short wave radiation, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays or gamma rays?

The claims you made there are every bit as nutty as anything allen has had to say.  And before you play the wounded hero, you claimed that the term energy must not refer to photons...and exactly what experience do we have with any of those sorts of radiation except in the form of photons?  I am laughing in your face...you and allen doing the end zone happy dance giving high fives over your discovery that the second law doesn't apply to anything except the only sort of energy which would help you support your claims...what a laugh.

And one more thing goober....exactly how could you have two way radiation exchange between objects if it isn't happening via photons?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> GREENHOUSE GASES like CO2 DO not LEAD to WARMING the PLANET, they CREATE 22% LOSS of the sun's TOTAL ENERGY BEFORE the LIGHT ever REACHES EARTH.



Exactly how do they do that since most of the incoming solar radiation is in the form of short wave radiation and our oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere is largely transparent to the incoming short wave radiation with the exception of a few trace gasses like ozone  and therefore the short wave radiation passes through the oxygen and nitrogen essentially unchanged except for some very short wave radiation which is blocked by O2 in the upper atmosphere resulting in the formation of ozone?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



You count what reaches the SURFACE
not what reaches the ATMOSPHERE.​You have to count both. Energy that reaches the surface and energy absorbed in the atmosphere both contribute.

because the GREEN HOUSE GASES, REFRACT that otherwise available warming firelight, to SPACE.​Refract is not the correct term. Water vapor and CO2 absorb and re-emit  photons. And they emit in all directions - some out to space, some back towards the surface.

And of the total energy that reaches the surface, it leaves in three ways - because of evaporation, by convection, and by long IR radiation. That long wavelength IR is absorbed by the greenhouse gases, which warms them and they transfer some of that energy to the nitrogen and oxygen.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Then you went on to make the claim that "energy" *must not refer to photons. It must refer to heat *in that context of the second law. By the same token two way radiation exchange between objects is allowed....
> 
> To some one whose entire post was to attempt to make the claim that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays,...



Your whole post focuses on something I didn't say. You should understand that photons are not heat, but a cause of heat. Emission of photons from a substance will cause it to cool; absorption of photons will cause it to heat.

The second law applied to radiation refers to what the substances are doing, not to the photons which are mediators of the energy. Yes photons have energy but the second law is not referring to that energy, only the gain or loss in energy in the substances. When you think of entropy, how can it be otherwise.

My flashlight counterexample illustrates that the second law is not referring directly to photon energy, but is referring to the heat changes in the system.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Then you went on to make the claim that "energy" *must not refer to photons. It must refer to heat *in that context of the second law. By the same token two way radiation exchange between objects is allowed....
> ...



Photons don't "have" energy...they are energy...and when science talks about radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, short wave radiation, etc etc etc...they are talking abot photons because whenever insofar as those types of energy exists, they only exist as photons.  When might you see infrared radiation, for example, that wasn't in the form of photons?  Did you hit your head while you were doing the end zone happy dance with allen?

And your flashlight example was pure bullshit...you really are desperate aren't you?  How about you show me anything in the scientific literature which suggests that energy, in any form is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...




I am not even going to try and pretend that I understood all the factors that you quoted along with the formulas, variables and variations used to calculate temperature rise or the other manners to fudge said data to come to a particular outcome.

What I can say with certainty is that the manipulation of weather fronts using geo-enginnering along with ionospheric heaters is a fact. They have been experimenting with energizing the upper atmosphere since the 1940's and owning the weather as a force multiplier for full spectrum dominance is even discussed in their white papers that are easily found on line. Water and soil samples of unsafe levels of strontium, barium and aluminum are the tale of the tape. It is destroying the biosphere, corrupting the food supply, killing oxygen producing plankton in the oceans and lakes. We breathe in this concoction of heavy metal particulates because they are under 5 microns and can't be filtered out.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Photons don't "have" energy...they are energy...



No, no, no! Why do you make stuff up! Energy is a *property* of photons.  A photon has other properties: spin, momentum, and zero mass.



SSDD said:


> How about you show me anything in the scientific literature which suggests that energy, in any form is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics.



Energy is a *property* of matter. It is meaningless to say a *property* is exempt from the second law. The wording that makes sense is, no *process* is exempt from the second law.

*Energy* will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

It is foolish to think the second law could ever imply,
*Photons* will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. (WRONG)

You don't understand the flashlight example. It tells us that the word energy must refer to heat in the second law wording. It does not refer to photons.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> No, no, no! Why do you make stuff up! Energy is a *property* of photons.  A photon has other properties: spin, momentum, and zero mass.



Give it up guy....you are sounding nuttier and nuttier all the time.

What Exactly Is a Photon?
A _photon_ is a particle of light defined as a discrete bundle (or _quantum_) of electromagnetic (or light) energy.

the definition of photon
he subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

And since these definitions of photons keep mentioning quanta and quantum, I guess you need help there as well.  After all, if you don't know what a photon is (odd since you spend so much time talking about them) I doubt that you would know what the term quanta or quantum means.

What exactly is a photon? Definition, properties, facts
A photon is the smallest discrete amount or quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light.

photon | Definition & Discovery
Photon, also called light quantum, minute energy packet of electromagnetic radiation. The concept originated (1905) in Albert Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect, in which he proposed the existence of discrete energy packets during the transmission of light.

Chegg.com
A photon is the basic unit of electromagnetic radiation. Also called a packet, quantum or electromagnetic radiation

Here is one with some cute pictures and bright colors...maybe it will be easier for you to understand since you clearly aren't up on the basics,

Physics for Kids: Photons and Light

In physics, a photon is a bundle of electromagnetic energy. It is the basic unit that makes up all light. The photon is sometimes referred to as a "quantum" of electromagnetic energy.

quanta or quantum - A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles

That means that a photon is the smallest bit of energy in any light or electromagnetic field.  And by the way...they have no mass because they are literally a bit of energy.

I could go on with the definitions that state quite clearly that photons are the smallest bit of energy possible, but I doubt that any number of definitions will sway you.



Wuwei said:


> Energy is a *property* of matter. It is meaningless to say a *property* is exempt from the second law. The wording that makes sense is, no *process* is exempt from the second law.



So according to you...the second law of thermodynamics is not referencing energy.  Keep talking....this is like watching a train wreck.

*


Wuwei said:



			Energy
		
Click to expand...

*


Wuwei said:


> will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object
> 
> It is foolish to think the second law could ever imply,
> *Photons* will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. (WRONG)



And yet, that is precisely what it says.  And now, in your mind, even though photons are defined as the smallest bit of energy possible, you believe that they are not energy...and no energy that moves in the form of radiation is governed by the second law of thermodynamics...therefore, any form of energy that moves in the form of photons can be used to create perpetual motion machines.  Why did we not know this?  If photons can move freely from a less organized state to a more organized state, then any garage mechanic can build a working perpetual motion machine.

Can you hear yourself or are the voices in your head drowning out everything.  Next you will be typing in* BOLD ALLCAPS *



Wuwei said:


> You don't understand the flashlight example. It tells us that the word energy must refer to heat in the second law wording. It does not refer to photons.



Oh I understand the flashlight example perfectly.  It was the straw, provided by allen which broke your proverbial intellectual back.

I knew that you were an idiot.  Now that you have left the text of whatever sources you use and are speaking your thoughts about thermodynamics in your own words,  you are even more ignorant of the subject than I ever guessed.

Wonder if your warmer buds are watching this slow motion train wreck wondering how far you will go before you realize what you have been saying?

One more caution...in your claim that the second law does not apply to photons, you are claiming that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to radiation....because what is radiation if not photons?

If you ignore that last caution, I am going to just encourage the crazy....and when you finally wake up, and read what you have written in this hysterical state, you will just have to leave the board go great will be your mortification.


----------



## sparky (Jul 9, 2018)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No, no, no! Why do you make stuff up! Energy is a *property* of photons.  A photon has other properties: spin, momentum, and zero mass.
> ...



Still no back-up for your unique misinterpretation? Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> A _photon_ is a particle of light etc etc etc



Yes, your plethora of definitions show photons have EM energy. Everyone knows that.

The second law of thermodynamics covers processes involving energy flow and rising entropy.

In your frenzy of caustic insults and redundant repetition, you never stated cogent reasons why you think the cold flashlight example is “bullshit”. It is not flawed. It clearly shows an example where the second law is preserved when photons from a colder object (flashlight) hit a warmer object.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A _photon_ is a particle of light etc etc etc
> ...



Not "have" EM energy....."Are" em energy.  There is a difference.  And you didn't answer my question...can you point out any instance where any known EM energy would not be in the form of photons.  For instance...what is IR before it is emitted?



Wuwei said:


> The second law of thermodynamics covers processes involving energy flow and rising entropy.



And how might EM energy move, if not in the form of photons?  Are you claiming that the second law only covers convection, conduction, and mechanical energy?  If so, then you are claiming that any form of electromagnetic energy can freely flow from a cold object to a warmer one which opens the door to all manner of perpetual energy machinery.



Wuwei said:


> In your frenzy of caustic insults and redundant repetition, you never stated cogent reasons why you think the cold flashlight example is “bullshit”. It is not flawed. It clearly shows an example where the second law is preserved when photons from a colder object (flashlight) hit a warmer object.



Your f'ing idiotic flashlight example only works if you accept that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to electromagnetic energy.  Good luck with that one.  You should have never left your script and ad libbing...you are sounding even crazier than allen right now.  Imagine, electromagnetic energy not covered by the second law of thermodynamics.

Guess we can throw Kirchhoff's law, and Planck's law a whole slew of other thermodynamic laws out the window since they clearly deal with photons and the second law of thermodynamics.  I simply can't believe that you let the likes of allen push you over the deep end.

By the way you f'ing moron...I pointed out that in your example, you, yourself used a cooled LED...the fact that it was a cooled LED didn't lead you to grasp that you weren't talking about a spontaneous process?  Geez guy...you really are this ignorant on the topic aren't you.  

At this point, you should be pissed at your warmer buds for not sending you an IM to tell you to shut the hell up before you make a total fool out of yourself...Well...to damned late now.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Are you claiming that the second law only covers convection, conduction, and mechanical energy?


Nope.



SSDD said:


> If so, then you are claiming that any form of electromagnetic energy can freely flow from a cold object to a warmer one which opens the door to all manner of perpetual energy machinery.


Yep, except it doesn't lead to perpetual motion.



SSDD said:


> Your f'ing idiotic flashlight example only works if you accept that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to electromagnetic energy.


The second law covers EM radiation between objects.



SSDD said:


> Guess we can throw Kirchhoff's law, and Planck's law a whole slew of other thermodynamic laws out the window since they clearly deal with photons and the second law of thermodynamics.


We shouldn't do that.



SSDD said:


> the fact that it was a cooled LED didn't lead you to grasp that you weren't talking about a spontaneous process?


A system can be constructed using work or external energy. Once that construction is finished and no more work is applied then the system becomes spontaneous. If the pre-cooling bothers you, just don't cool it and simply aim the flashlight at hot asphalt. That would illustrate photons from a colder object hitting a warmer object.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Nope.



Then name another sort of energy, besides chemical energy which doesn't exist in any other form than as photons.  I asked you what you thought IR might be before it becomes a photon?



Wuwei said:


> Yep, except it doesn't lead to perpetual motion.



Of course it would.  That is the whole point.  That is precisely what prevents perpetual motion engines....energy doesn't flow freely from cool objects to warm objects.  If you think otherwise, then you have moved even further into the territory of abject ignorance than I though you already were.




SSDD said:


> The second law covers EM radiation between objects.



Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy.  And whenever electromagnetic radiation exists, what form do you think it takes?  Again, name a form of EM that does not exist in the form of photons?  If you exempt photons from the second law of thermodynamics, then you have to exempt any form of energy which exists in the form of photons.  Practically any text you care to look will describe electromagnetic radiation as a stream of massless particles called photons traveling in a wave like pattern at the speed of light.  Each photon represents a certain amount of energy.  The different sorts of EM radiation are determined by the amount of energy each photon represents.  Radio wave photons represent less energy than microwave photons.    If you are talking about EM radiation, you are talking about photons.

I still invite you to tell me what sort of EM radiation might exist moving between objects that is not a stream of photons.  



Wuwei said:


> We shouldn't do that.



Of course not, but if we are going to exempt photons, which literally what every form of EM radiation is made of, then what other choice do we have.



Wuwei said:


> A system can be constructed using work or external energy. Once that construction is finished and no more work is applied then the system becomes spontaneous. If the pre-cooling bothers you, just don't cool it and simply aim the flashlight at hot asphalt. That would illustrate photons from a colder object hitting a warmer object.



Sorry guy, the fact that work went into making the system means that the system is not a spontaneous process and therefore nothing that comes out of it will be a spontaneous process.  Once more, since you clearly didn't pay attention the first time...a spontaneous process is defined by physics as a process occurring, produced, or performed through natural processes without external influences.   As I pointed out to you already, the engineers who are developing LED lighting assure us that LED's are not an example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object.  It isn't intuitive, but alas, it is true.  Have you ever looked at an LED?  Ever noticed that it is sitting on a heat sink that is enormous relative to its size?...and you are talking about a cooled LED. 

Refer to the first rule..anyone who thinks they have found a way around the second law, a loophole in the second law, or a form of energy that is exempt from the second law is WRONG.

Why not simply admit that you made an error under the influence of a crazy person and move on rather than trying to defend the absolute insanity of claiming that electromagnetic radiation in the form of photons (and what other form would it take) is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Then name another sort of energy, besides chemical energy which doesn't exist in any other form than as photons. I asked you what you thought IR might be before it becomes a photon?



Kinetic and nuclear energy are not photon energy. IR does not exist before it becomes a photon.



SSDD said:


> Of course it would. That is the whole point. That is precisely what prevents perpetual motion engines....energy doesn't flow freely from cool objects to warm objects. If you think otherwise, then you have moved even further into the territory of abject ignorance than I though you already were.



Photons can flow freely from any source to any destination. If you think that allows perpetual motion you have to show me the machine design.



SSDD said:


> Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy. And whenever electromagnetic radiation exists, what form do you think it takes? Again, name a form of EM that does not exist in the form of photons? If you exempt photons from the second law of thermodynamics, then you have to exempt any form of energy which exists in the form of photons. Practically any text you care to look will describe electromagnetic radiation as a stream of massless particles called photons traveling in a wave like pattern at the speed of light. Each photon represents a certain amount of energy. The different sorts of EM radiation are determined by the amount of energy each photon represents. Radio wave photons represent less energy than microwave photons. If you are talking about EM radiation, you are talking about photons.
> 
> I still invite you to tell me what sort of EM radiation might exist moving between objects that is not a stream of photons.



Of course all EM radiation is a photon stream. Photons being “exempt” from the 2nd law makes no sense. Only a process can be considered to be exempt, and that never happens. Photons flow freely without regard to temperature in any process that involves photons. We went through this many times before.



SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, the fact that work went into making the system means that the system is not a spontaneous process and therefore nothing that comes out of it will be a spontaneous process. Once more, since you clearly didn't pay attention the first time...a spontaneous process is defined by physics as a process occurring, produced, or performed through natural processes without external influences.



_A *spontaneous process* is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state._​
That is a strict physical definition that is used in the mathematics of thermodynamics. It has nothing to do with what happened before the system was constructed.

If you want to stick to processes that are only naturally occurring before the fact, you would have to say Uranium 235 decay is natural and therefore spontaneous. However you would have to say decay of Americium 241 is not spontaneous because it is not naturally occurring and work went into making it. That makes no sense.

Your post boils down to one thing: you think that exchange of photons between objects can be inhibited by the hotter object. There is no physical mechanism that can cause inhibition of absorption. The LED flashlight is one example.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2018)

So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.

What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.
> 
> What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.



*your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. *

Where does the 2nd Law mention photons again?

I noticed you're still afraid to discuss the thermodynamics of heating my home in winter.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


Nope, not exempt at all. 



SSDD said:


> According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.


Yep. 372,000 physicists know that there is no 2nd law violation. 



SSDD said:


> What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.



Not just me, all physicists know that it is rational and that is the way nature works. The 2nd law is always obeyed when EM radiation moves freely because all warm objects freely emit more radiation than they absorb from freely emitting cold objects. 

We went through this many times. It shouldn't surprise you.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.
> ...



Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I noticed you're still afraid to discuss the thermodynamics of heating my home in winter.



Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer...one can only speak so much to crazy...your walls in winter seem to have had the same sort of mental effect that EM radiation have had on wuwei...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Yep. 372,000 physicists know that there is no 2nd law violation.



Don't seem to be able to find any such literature saying that any form of electromagnetic radiation can move freely between objects of different temperatures...apparently more interpretation on your part.  Simply making it up as you go.  Nothing new.



Wuwei said:


> Not just me, all physicists know that it is rational and that is the way nature works. The 2nd law is always obeyed when EM radiation moves freely because all warm objects freely emit more radiation than they absorb from freely emitting cold objects.



And again...no mention in any literature of an exemption in the second law which allows free energy transfer between objects via radiation...



Wuwei said:


> We went through this many times. It shouldn't surprise you.



No...this is a whole new level of crazy.

By the way...do you have any observed, measured evidence supporting this whole new level of crazy?  You certainly couldn't produce any for any of your previous claims? 

Here is a question for you?  What are claims worth when you have no evidence to back them up?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.*

If that were the case, you'd have dozens of sources backing up your unique interpretation. Hundreds.
Instead you have none. Weird.

*Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer.*

No, you haven't. Not even once.
I'll give you another chance.

The temperature in Chicago in December is 20F.
I turn on my furnace and eventually the walls of my home reach 70F.
Is that because work was done to raise their temperature?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. 372,000 physicists know that there is no 2nd law violation.
> ...



*And again...no mention in any literature of an exemption in the second law which allows free energy transfer between objects via radiation...*







Did you already forget your source, The Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition?

It's weird that you don't provide any sources that explain that radiation only flows one way.
You know, to dispute the many provided that show two-way flow.

*Here is a question for you?  What are claims worth when you have no evidence to back them up?*

Indeed.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Don't seem to be able to find any such literature saying that any form of electromagnetic radiation can move freely between objects of different temperatures...apparently more interpretation on your part. Simply making it up as you go. Nothing new.
> 
> ... And again...no mention in any literature of an exemption in the second law which allows free energy transfer between objects via radiation...



Almost everyone on this thread who understands physics has cited the SB equation as a statement of EM emission minus absorption. The CMB and solar corona has also been cited. Some have cited diagrams from the literature illustrating simultaneous emission and absorption. Equilibrium radiation has been cited extensively in the literature by some on this board. In light of the above, the problem is not that there is no mention in the literature, but it is that you choose not to believe the literature nor modern physics.

It has been demonstrated and is obvious to anyone in physics that photons from random systems are emitted in random directions. The only way radiation is stopped is by absorption in matter. To say that temperature of a distant object can stop radiation has absolutely no basis and violates atomic physics.

There is a scarcity or nonexistence of experiments specifically devoted to two way radiation exchange most likely because it is so obvious that nothing else makes sense. Despite repeated requests you have not supplied your reasoning except for spurious distractions. Your arguments involving the “elegance” of equations or the “face value” of laws, or the metaphysics (“nobody knows what gravity really is”) is not physics and is no match against the power of the laws of physics tested with incredible accuracy.



SSDD said:


> this is a whole new level of crazy.



You have time and again expressed contempt for modern physics. So it is not a new level of crazy. It's that you have years of a continuing old level of crazy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2018)

So you aren't claiming that electromagnetic radiation is exempt from the second law..you are just trying to get around the second law which says that it is not possible for energy to move from a cool object to a warm object...same old thing with no observed measured examples of any such thing happening.

Well, it is good to know that you are back to operating on faith rather than gone over the deep end believing in perpetual motion machines.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you aren't claiming that electromagnetic radiation is exempt from the second law..you are just trying to get around the second law which says that it is not possible for energy to move from a cool object to a warm object...same old thing with no observed measured examples of any such thing happening.
> 
> Well, it is good to know that you are back to operating on faith rather than gone over the deep end believing in perpetual motion machines.



I have never claimed that EM is exempt or tried to get around the 2nd law. You jumped to conclusions because you don't understand physics terminology, and had a caustic meltdown. I simply showed you that an LED flashlight can emit photons to a hotter body while it obeys the second law. You do not have a valid reason that it is false.

Now, how about a valid atomic principle that prevents accelerating charges from emitting EM radiation to a hotter body. Better yet how about an atomic principle that prevents both bodies at the same temperature from emitting at all.  If you can't do that, then all you have is a misplaced faith.


----------



## Crick (Jul 11, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> A  friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if  true, could it cause catastrophic warming.  While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.
> 
> Lets go straight to the heart of AGW..
> 
> ...



Did you actually write all of this?  That's the biggest load of pseudo-scientific bullshit I've seen in a month of sundays.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > A  friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if  true, could it cause catastrophic warming.  While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.
> ...



*Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state. *

He never did explain what the above means.

He posts so much baloney, I think his real name is Oscar Mayer.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 11, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Again such bull shit....  you know exactly what the negative or low state of a molecule is and several people have tried to explain it.. Too bad you didn't like the answer..  Weird how some can be disingenuous that way..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



* you know exactly what the negative or low state of a molecule is and several people have tried to explain it.. *

Repeat your explanation.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you aren't claiming that electromagnetic radiation is exempt from the second law..you are just trying to get around the second law which says that it is not possible for energy to move from a cool object to a warm object...same old thing with no observed measured examples of any such thing happening.
> ...



Like I said...you are trying to find a loophole in the second law which would allow energy to flow freely from a cool object to a warm object...engineers assure us that LED's are not an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool body to a warm body.  Same old false claims with no actual evidence to back you up.  Your instinct is wrong, but by all means, go out and bring something from the literature which claims that an LED is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object.

And again...what I have regarding energy moving from cool to warm is the second law itself which says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...and the fact that such movement has never been observed or measured.

*The hard fact is that if there were any exceptions to the statement that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm, then it would not be a physical law.*

Here are a couple of papers which will not convince you in the least that you are wrong, but they do explain in some detail how terribly you have misinterpreted several radiation laws in your attempt to get around the second law of thermodynamics.

http://tech-know-group.com/papers/IR-absorption_updated.pdf

https://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM_REYNEN_Planck_absorption.pdf

If you find any problems or errors, by all means point them out...if you just want to hurl some logical fallacies in an impotent attempt to discredit, I will certainly understand..it is, after all, the only weapon you have at your disposal in this discussion,


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



To true...it all logical fallacy all the time with them.  It's the only weapon they have in this discussion.  They certainly can't bring any real objective science to bear....apply even the smallest bit of the skepticism required by science and the whole AGW hypothesis begins to disintegrate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace but some of the work came from the 20F outside temperatures warming the wall above 20F.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace*

Excellent!
So that explains why the 70F walls can emit toward my 98F body.
Don't tell SSDD.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*apply even the smallest bit of the skepticism required by science and the whole AGW hypothesis begins to disintegrate.*

I destroyed AGW just by pointing out your confusion? Excellent!

That AGW crap is a giant waste of time and money.
Now that we got that out of the way.....let's get back to your confusion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How long would it take the 20F outside to warm the house to 70F?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 12, 2018)

Theoretically, there's nothing stopping the 20F exterior temperature from heating the house to hundreds of degrees, set it on fire. Maybe it's the cold night air that starts forest fires??


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So that's why you run a 102 fever- too close to the walls


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Why would the outside at 20F heat up the 20F inside?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 12, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If cooler radiates toward warmer, then what's the upper limit?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*If cooler radiates toward warmer, then what's the upper limit? *

Everything radiates in every direction.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Like I said...you are trying to find a loophole in the second law which would allow energy to flow freely from a cool object to a warm object.



That is a gross misunderstanding of what you think is meant by radiation exchange between objects. There is no “loophole”. Radiation exchange is simply how nature works, and it does not ever violate the 2nd law. Entropy always increases.



SSDD said:


> engineers assure us that LED's are not an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool body to a warm body.



What engineers assure us of that?

An LED flashlight is an example of how EM radiation from a cold source can hit a hotter surface. The junction temperature of an LED in a penlight can easily be well below the temperature of an outdoor surface. The 2nd law is not violated. Why do you think it is?



SSDD said:


> Here are a couple of papers which will not convince you in the least that you are wrong, but they do explain in some detail how terribly you have misinterpreted several radiation laws in your attempt to get around the second law of thermodynamics.
> 
> http://tech-know-group.com/papers/IR-absorption_updated.pdf
> 
> ...



I agree with both papers. The author's main point which he makes over a dozen times is that back radiation of heat does not happen. I agree that heat can only flow from hot to cold substances, and not back. I'm sure all physicists agree with that.

The author says nothing about photons. The essence of the SB equation is that through the emission and absorption of EM radiation, heat always flows one way from hot to cold surfaces while the radiation is both ways. I have no problem with the author's main conclusion.

*You still haven't given a valid atomic principle that prevents accelerating charges from emitting EM radiation to a hotter body, or why black body radiation can possibly be inhibited by a remote condition.*


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Entropy always increases.[/quote
> 
> And energy, in any form never moves spontaneously from cold to warm.
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Entropy always increases.[/quote
> ...



*heat is the result of energy moving from one place to another....in the case of radiation, that is only possible via photons...so when he is talking about heat, he is talking about the movement of photons since radiation can move no other way.*

That's why you never post any sources that claim photons only move one way.
DERP!


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 12, 2018)

SSDD:
_Guess you never looked at an LED outside of a flashlight. Try it some time...note that the heat sink they are sitting on is positively enormous relative to the size of the LED. Then ask yourself why a cold source would need such an enormous heat sink.._.​
I have worked with low power LED's since the late 70's. The heat sink size means nothing. The junction temperature is what counts. A pen flashlight does not need a special heat sink. LEDs can easily function with junction temperature below 70C. A dark car in the sun can get to 78C. That is an example of how a colder object can radiate to a hotter object.

With reference to the papers you cited I said,_ “The author says nothing about photons.” _And your reply was

“_Of course he does...”_

It's obvious that you never read the papers that you cited. You often do that. Read the paper and you will see that the *author says nothing about photons*. Throughout the paper the author continually refers to the work of Pierre Prevost. You obviously didn't know that Provost did his work in 1791. Stefan came later with his work in 1879. Prevost knew nothing about photons or LW radiation. Neither did Stefan. So the author was not talking about LW *radiation*. He was talking about *heat*. Read the papers before you say anything about it. Or maybe you did read the paper but understood nothing. 

_SSDD:
Tell you what, you describe what causes a molecule to vibrate, and then describe, precisely, the mechanism by which that vibration is translated to outgoing radiation,_​
Everything you want to know is in the classical description by Maxwell's equations and especially Schrodinger's equations. You are again dodging physics and attempting to put up a metaphysics smoke screen distraction. That is not physics! You simply have no argument and are just being a troll again.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> It's obvious that you never read the papers that you cited. You often do that. Read the paper and you will see that the *author says nothing about photons*. Throughout the paper the author continually refers to the work of Pierre Prevost. You obviously didn't know that Provost did his work in 1791. Stefan came later with his work in 1879. Prevost knew nothing about photons or LW radiation. Neither did Stefan. So the author was not talking about LW *radiation*. He was talking about *heat*. Read the papers before you say anything about it. Or maybe you did read the paper but understood nothing.



Heat is the movement of radiation..and radiation only moves in the form pf photons...sorry guy...you can't beat the second law..and there are no examples whatsoever of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...there are plenty of examples of people being fooled into thinking that they have examples.



Wuwei said:


> Everything you want to know is in the classical description by Maxwell's equations and especially Schrodinger's equations. You are again dodging physics and attempting to put up a metaphysics smoke screen distraction. That is not physics! You simply have no argument and are just being a troll again.



I can't help but notice that you didn't describe anything like a mechanism by which an internal vibration is translated into outgoing radiation...that would be because science doesn't even begin to understand that mechanism.  Again, it is clear that you believe science knows everything and even when it is clear that it doesn't you can't bring yourself to admit it.  Pretty much like any religious zealot.  If you think science understands the mechanism, then by all means post it. 

If you post anything it will turn out to be more evidence that you are completely ignorant...probably not even understanding what the word mechanism means.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It's obvious that you never read the papers that you cited. You often do that. Read the paper and you will see that the *author says nothing about photons*. Throughout the paper the author continually refers to the work of Pierre Prevost. You obviously didn't know that Provost did his work in 1791. Stefan came later with his work in 1879. Prevost knew nothing about photons or LW radiation. Neither did Stefan. So the author was not talking about LW *radiation*. He was talking about *heat*. Read the papers before you say anything about it. Or maybe you did read the paper but understood nothing.
> ...



*and there are no examples whatsoever of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...there are plenty of examples of people being fooled into thinking that they have examples.*​






Good old SSDD. He has no sources that back up his one-way flow of radiation, but he knows 
that the  Handbook of Modern Sensors was fooled.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Heat is the movement of radiation..and radiation only moves in the form pf photons...sorry guy...you can't beat the second law..and there are no examples whatsoever of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...there are plenty of examples of people being fooled into thinking that they have examples.


I referenced a book that you cited. Now you are criticizing the very book you cited! Wow, you didn't understand it at all. Just why did you cite it? 

It seems you have given up on denying the reality of an LED causing radiation to flow from a colder to a warmer substance. 



SSDD said:


> I can't help but notice that you didn't describe anything like a mechanism by which an internal vibration is translated into outgoing radiation...that would be because science doesn't even begin to understand that mechanism. Again, it is clear that you believe science knows everything and even when it is clear that it doesn't you can't bring yourself to admit it. Pretty much like any religious zealot. If you think science understands the mechanism, then by all means post it.



Now you are oozing with hypocrisy. You take a stance which no scientist believes, and then say scientists don't know what amounts to the metaphysical mechanism for their science. But nevertheless you never question the metaphysical mechanism of your own belief but expect science too. That is pure hypocrisy. Is that the best you can do? Metaphysics is not physics. You have lost all credibility. As I suspected you are at the intellectual level of Frank, Sunsettommy, JC, Billy Bob, etc.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Good old SSDD. He has no sources that back up his one-way flow of radiation, but he knows
> that the  Handbook of Modern Sensors was fooled.



I have the second law of thermodynamics which states that it is not possible for energy to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....you have opinions, and occasionally a drawing  illustrating an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.  So in the end, what do you have?  Nothing...In the end what do I have?  The second law of thermodynamics saying that it isn't possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm.  Who has the better source?  You with some opinions and a few drawings illustrating the opinions or me with the second law of thermodynamics?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I referenced a book that you cited. Now you are criticizing the very book you cited! Wow, you didn't understand it at all. Just why did you cite it?



I cited it because it explains why you are mistaken.  I didn't take into account the fact that you will twist, interpret, and pervert anything into a form that seems to support you, regardless of how wrong it is.  Case in point:

Still waiting for you to describe any form of electromagnetic energy...or any movement of electromagnetic energy which isn't in the form of photons? You claim that photons are exempt from the second law of thermodynamics but not electromagnetic radiation, and yet, the only form electromagnetic takes is that of photons. Interesting that you can't see the disconnect in your logic there.



Wuwei said:


> It seems you have given up on denying the reality of an LED causing radiation to flow from a colder to a warmer substance



_What is to talk about? You are under the impression that the light leaving an LED is a spontaneous energy movement...you couldn't be more wrong. You claim that the enormous heat sink upon which LEDs sit is irrelevant, but the whole purpose is to extract heat during the process of converting energy to light. Hardly a spontaneous process and if it is not spontaneous, then it isn't an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm. _


​


Wuwei said:


> Now you are oozing with hypocrisy. You take a stance which no scientist believes, and then say scientists don't know what amounts to the metaphysical mechanism for their science. But nevertheless you never question the metaphysical mechanism of your own belief but expect science too. That is pure hypocrisy. Is that the best you can do? Metaphysics is not physics. You have lost all credibility. As I suspected you are at the intellectual level of Frank, Sunsettommy, JC, Billy Bob, etc.



Typical, distort your own hypocricy in an attempt to deny it and accuse someone else of the exact thing that you are doing.  

_You are taking a stance which is nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. And alas, it is you who is the hypocrite...insisting that I provide the mechanism by which energy is prevented from moving spontaneously from cool to warm in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics when you can't describe the mechanism by which that energy is changed from an internal vibration to outgoing radiation. That means that the mechanism by which energy is prevented from moving spontaneously from cool to warm may be found within the mechanism by which the internal vibration is translated to outgoing radiation. 

That being the case, we have reached an impass and the second law still says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm and you still have nothing but an opinion and an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model, and not the first piece of observed, measured evidence in support of either...….and the wrong assumption that there is no difference between spontaneous energy movement and stimulated energy movement._


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I cited it because it explains why you are mistaken. I didn't take into account the fact that you will twist, interpret, and pervert anything into a form that seems to support you, regardless of how wrong it is. Case in point:



I already told you I agreed with the paper. So you, Mr Hypocrite are now twisting and perverting.



SSDD said:


> You claim that photons are exempt from the second law of thermodynamics but not electromagnetic radiation



You are lying and you know it. It is the paper you cited that did not mention photons. The author was not talking about photons or EM energy he was talking about heat and I agreed with what he said. You are always citing papers that disagree with you.



SSDD said:


> What is to talk about? You are under the impression that the light leaving an LED is a spontaneous energy movement...you couldn't be more wrong. You claim that the enormous heat sink upon which LEDs sit is irrelevant, but the whole purpose is to extract heat during the process of converting energy to light. Hardly a spontaneous process and if it is not spontaneous, then it isn't an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.



You couldn't be more wrong. Penlights have no heat sink and still a lower junction temperature than some natural objects. They can emit photons or EM radiation to a warmer object. They follow the physics definition of spontaneous. An you have no argument against that. Period.



SSDD said:


> You are taking a stance which is nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.



Physics is mathematical models. If you don't believe that then you don't believe physics. You were shown time and again that EM energy or photons can flow anywhere impeded only by matter at any temperature. Since you don't believe atomic physics which was observed, measured, tested and verified to parts per billion, then you are only left with your trolldom of faith. You can mock 372 thousand physicists if you want, but it really makes a mockery of you.



SSDD said:


> That being the case, we have reached an impass



Not we. You have reached an impasse since your faith barricades you from the success of physics, and you judge nature by what you think is "elegant" or "face value", or metaphysics. It seems your only recourse now is to lie, be a troll, and make bitter caustic remarks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Good old SSDD. He has no sources that back up his one-way flow of radiation, but he knows
> ...



*I have the second law of thermodynamics which states that it is not possible for energy to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object..*

You have the second law of thermodynamics which you misinterpret to state that it is not possible for photons to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

*you have opinions, and occasionally a drawing  illustrating an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.*

It's hilarious that a source you originally referenced, The Handbook of Modern Sensors, shows that energy flows from a sensor to its target and from the target to the sensor. At the same time. 

*The second law of thermodynamics saying that it isn't possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm.  Who has the better source? *

If you were correct, energy on the Sun's surface would be "trapped" by the hotter corona.
If you were correct, energy on the Earth's surface would be "trapped" by the hotter thermosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I already told you I agreed with the paper. So you, Mr Hypocrite are now twisting and perverting.



No..you didn't  you did nothing more than attempt to twist what was said.  You claim that he wasn't talking about photons...I asked you when electromagnetic energy ever takes a form other than photons.  Then you claim that he was just talking about heat...what is heat but the movement of EM energy..and what is either EM energy or heat but photons.  You think because he didn't say photons, that photons are out of the equation?  Are you really that stupid?



Wuwei said:


> You are lying and you know it. It is the paper you cited that did not mention photons. The author was not talking about photons or EM energy he was talking about heat and I agreed with what he said. You are always citing papers that disagree with you.



What?  Are you going to cry now?  Of course he was talking about photons...when you are talking about radiation, energy movement, or heat resulting from the movement of radiation, you are talking about photons.  Once again...what Is EM radiation before it is photons?  What is EM energy if it isn't photons?  How is heat via EM radiation possible without photons?



Wuwei said:


> You couldn't be more wrong. Penlights have no heat sink and still a lower junction temperature than some natural objects. They can emit photons or EM radiation to a warmer object. They follow the physics definition of spontaneous. An you have no argument against that. Period.



You have no argument...what you have is ignorance and abject stupidity.  D you have any idea how a junction diode works?  In the simplest possible terms:    First, you take a bit of n-type siicon which has a few to many electrons, and then you join that to a piece of p-type silicon which has a few too few electrons.  A few of the electrons from the n-type silicon will slip across the junction and fill in the spaces in the p-type silicon which had to few electrons and suddenly, you have some plain old silicon.  Since plain old silicon doesn't conduct electricity, it forms a barrier between the n-type and the p-type silicon.  Call this barrier the depletion zone.  There you have a system.

Now connect a battery to this p-type/n-type junction so that the battery's positive terminal goes to the p-type silicon and the negative terminal goes to the n-type silicon.  Flip the switch and the depletion zone shrinks dramatically.  Electrons, and holes that would like to be filled with electrons start moving across the junction as the from the battery flows.  As the electrons, and the holes that would like to be filled with electrons are moving in opposite directions across the junction they are constantly joining together and in that way, eliminating each other.  This joining together makes an atom that is complete and more stable and as a result, it gives off a little burst of energy in the form of a photon.

And you are stupid enough to even think about calling that a spontaneous process?  Sorry doofus, it isn't.  If you could join the n-type and p-type silicon and have light as a result, you would have a spontaneous process....but alas, you have to connect a battery to the silicon...remember, a spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings...a stimulated process is one where energy is added to the system to make the process happen.  When you connect that battery to the silicon you initiated a stimulated process...not a spontaneous process.  
exam
It isn't my fault that you lack any actual knowledge on the topic and that wherever you get your information didn't bother to tell you how wrong you were.  My bet is that even if it did tell you, you would twist, pervert, and interpret what you read in an attempt to make it agree with you and in doing so, learn nothing.







Wuwei said:


> Physics is mathematical models. If you don't believe that then you don't believe physics. You were shown time and again that EM energy or photons can flow anywhere impeded only by matter at any temperature. Since you don't believe atomic physics which was observed, measured, tested and verified to parts per billion, then you are only left with your trolldom of faith. You can mock 372 thousand physicists if you want, but it really makes a mockery of you.



Physics may be models, but he models are supposed to be predicting what is happening in reality.  Till such time as the model demonstrates that it predicts and actually models reality, it is just a model.  That is the primary problem with post modern science in general.  It has forgotten that models aren't evidence...they are only predictions and till such time as observed, measured evidence backs them up, they are nothing but models.  

And are you really this f'ing stupid?  Do you get that the word spontaneous is important in relation to the second law of thermodynamics and energy movement in general?  Do you think I keep typing the word spontaneous just for fun?  The second law itself says that you can move energy anywhere you want if you are prepared to expend work to get it done...stimulated process vs spontaneous process.  The fact that you can connect a battery to a system, flip a switch and start a stimulated process has no bearing whatsoever on the natural movement of energy via spontaneous process.



Wuwei said:


> Not we. You have reached an impasse since your faith barricades you from the success of physics, and you judge nature by what you think is "elegant" or "face value", or metaphysics. It seems your only recourse now is to lie, be a troll, and make bitter caustic remarks.



No...its we...I keep pointing out and spelling out that the second law says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm, you claim otherwise based on nothing more than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models, and the only example you manage to come up with is the result of you jumping on the crazy train with a true idiot who clearly didn't grasp the importance of the word spontaneous as it relates to energy movement and the second law of thermodynamics any more than you.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No..you didn't you did nothing more than attempt to twist what was said. You claim that he wasn't talking about photons...I asked you when electromagnetic energy ever takes a form other than photons. Then you claim that he was just talking about heat...what is heat but the movement of EM energy..and what is either EM energy or heat but photons. You think because he didn't say photons, that photons are out of the equation? Are you really that stupid?



You still didn't read your own paper! And you are criticizing me for telling you what the author said!? Of course radiation exchange is mediated by EM energy but your author didn't say anything about EM radiation. He called it heat. Take your gripe up with him not me.



SSDD said:


> What? Are you going to cry now? Of course he was talking about photons...when you are talking about radiation, energy movement, or heat resulting from the movement of radiation, you are talking about photons. Once again...what Is EM radiation before it is photons? What is EM energy if it isn't photons? How is heat via EM radiation possible without photons?



As I said take your gripe to the author. I know what EM energy is. So read the paper to find out what he is saying. EM energy doesn't exist before becomes photons. That should be obvious. Your question can be reworded as, _What are photons before they are photons_.



SSDD said:


> You have no argument...what you have is ignorance and abject stupidity. D you have any idea how a junction diode works?



Yes, but I don't need to copy lectures from the web.

I see you still don't know what spontaneous is. Just because it's complex doesn't make it not spontaneous. Think of the complex spontaneous nuclear fusion sequences in the sun. There is no outside energy source driving the sun nor a penlight with an internal battery. Tape the button closed if that bothers you.

The following definitions describe battery operation and the sun as a spontaneous chemical process. There is nothing about stimulated emission or junctions, etc if that's what's bothering you.

_A *spontaneous process* is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases *free energy* and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state._

_Thermodynamic* free energy* is the amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform. The concept is useful in the thermodynamics of *chemical *or thermal processes _



SSDD said:


> Physics may be models, but he models are supposed to be predicting what is happening in reality. Till such time as the model demonstrates that it predicts and actually models reality, it is just a model. That is the primary problem with post modern science in general. It has forgotten that models aren't evidence...they are only predictions and till such time as observed, measured evidence backs them up, they are nothing but models.



How many times do I have to tell you that the models of atomic physics not only predict reality but they do it to parts per billion accuracy. You keep going over the same things as if you never heard it before.



SSDD said:


> No...its we...I keep pointing out and spelling out that the second law says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm, you claim otherwise based on nothing more than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models, and the only example you manage to come up with is the result of you jumping on the crazy train with a true idiot who clearly didn't grasp the importance of the word spontaneous as it relates to energy movement and the second law of thermodynamics any more than you.



Wrong as usual. We went over that many times, but you don't understand physics and make up your own definitions of well established terminology. If you want to go against the verified theory of QM that's your decision, but it does make you look ignorant and puts you at an impasse. You have certainly lost your credibility.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You still didn't read your own paper! And you are criticizing me for telling you what the author said!? Of course radiation exchange is mediated by EM energy but your author didn't say anything about EM radiation. He called it heat. Take your gripe up with him not me.



It isn't often that one encounters a congenital liar, but you sure seem to fit the bill.  And of course I am not criticizing you for what the author said...I am criticizing you for being stupid, wrong and a damned liar.

You say he called it heat, but didn't say anything about EM radiation?  Generally speaking, authors don't list every term any given thing could be called as it would be terribly boring to read, and make the document excessively long.  It is expected, that if you can read, you might have the intellectual wattage to learn if a particular term may be referred to in multiple ways.

If you were reading an article on the sun, would you argue that it must not be our star because he didn't specifically name it Sol?  What a putz...

Since you clearly either aren't bright enough, or are so inherently dishonest that you can't bother to look up the truth, here, let me help you out.

Environmental Physics

Environmental Physics - Claire Smith - p.77  -  

clip:  Radiant heat is a form of electromagnetic radiation which covers the spectrum from X-rays to radio waves, all having certain properties in common.

(want to cry because she said radiant heat and you think heat and radiant heat are two different things in the context of radiation?)

Heat radiates 10,000 times faster at the nanoscale

clip:   Heat is a form of electromagnetic radiation, so it moves at the speed of light.


This one is in the form of a test from 
http://repo.pmi.edu/online/Master_Documents/Radiation_Physics/Radiation_Physics_Lesson_2/Quiz2.txt

 Heat is a form of electromagnetic radiation produced at relatively low energies called..

Here is one that may be on your level:

Planck constant Facts for Kids

All hot bodies give off radiant heat. Radiant heat is electromagnetic radiation. Normally this radiation is in the infra-red range, but if the body is very hot (1000 °C or more), it is in the visible range

And I could go on and on and on with sources stating that heat is electromagnetic radiation.  So make a note, if someone is talking about heat in the form of radiation, he is talking about electromagnetic radiation...and also talking about photons.



Wuwei said:


> As I said take your gripe to the author. I know what EM energy is. So read the paper to find out what he is saying. EM energy doesn't exist before becomes photons. That should be obvious. Your question can be reworded as, _What are photons before they are photons_.



Clearly you don't know what EM radiation is.




Wuwei said:


> Yes, but I don't need to copy lectures from the web.



Guess once again, you don't.



Wuwei said:


> I see you still don't know what spontaneous is. Just because it's complex doesn't make it not spontaneous. Think of the complex spontaneous nuclear fusion sequences in the sun. There is no outside energy source driving the sun nor a penlight with an internal battery. Tape the button closed if that bothers you.



Here...other sources besides wiki..

19.1: Spontaneous Processes

A spontaneous process is one that occurs naturally under certain conditions. *A nonspontaneous process, on the other hand, will not take place unless it is “driven” by the continual input of energy from an external source*.

Spontaneous and Nonspontaneous Processes | Introduction to Chemistry

A spontaneous process is capable of proceeding in a given direction without needing to be driven by an outside source of energy.

Spontaneous Process

*spontaneous process*: a physical or chemical change that occurs without the addition of energy.

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~mcnemar/apchem/chapter19.pdf

Any process which occurs without outside intervention is spontaneous.

Spontaneous Process & 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Assignment Help - Physics

Spontaneous Process_ It is a process which takes place on its own, i.e. there is no external energy required for the process to take place.


The following definitions describe battery operation and the sun as a spontaneous chemical process. There is nothing about stimulated emission or junctions, etc if that's what's bothering you.

_A *spontaneous process* is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases *free energy* and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state._

_Thermodynamic* free energy* is the amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform. The concept is useful in the thermodynamics of *chemical *or thermal processes 

And again...I could go on with source after source stating that a spontaneous process occurs without input of energy from an outside source.  Obvious to anyone with even a slight grasp of the basics...that leaves you out._



Wuwei said:


> How many times do I have to tell you that the models of atomic physics not only predict reality but they do it to parts per billion accuracy. You keep going over the same things as if you never heard it before.



You can stop telling, and simply produce an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm one...what's that bucky?  You don't have any?  



Wuwei said:


> Wrong as usual. We went over that many times, but you don't understand physics and make up your own definitions of well established terminology. If you want to go against the verified theory of QM that's your decision, but it does make you look ignorant and puts you at an impasse. You have certainly lost your credibility.



Verified?  Really?  With what?  More models?  Lets see that observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm....


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 15, 2018)

Your whole post is full of misconceptions.


SSDD said:


> ...EM energy ... heat ... etc.



I already told you I agreed with the author who was continually referring to the 1791 work of Provost who knew nothing about EM energy!. Do you think he did in 1971? I have no idea why you are so bent out of shape about that. You simply did not understand the paper you cited.



SSDD said:


> Any process which occurs without outside intervention is spontaneous....
> *spontaneous process*: a physical or chemical change that occurs without the addition of energy
> . … etc



Those definitions of a spontaneous process are fine too. There is *no outside source* of energy powering a penlight. Only the internal chemical reaction inside a battery that is *inside* a penlight is supplying energy. That is what makes the penlight a spontaneous process.



SSDD said:


> You can stop telling, and simply produce an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm one.



Your “smart photon” idea has no quantitative support. Your reasoning from day one via argumentum ad ignorantiam does not hold water.
*
Argumentum ad* *ignorantiam* (also known as: appeal to ignorance): The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. 

The fallacy is usually best described by, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



SSDD said:


> Verified? Really? With what? More models? Lets see that observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm....



The models of atomic physics were verified by many *experiments* (observations and quantitative measurements) to parts per billion. The observations and measurements support the EM radiation of all vibrating charges. Your “theory” does not obey the many experiments of atomic physics and is based on a logic fallacy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I already told you I agreed with the author who was continually referring to the 1791 work of Provost who knew nothing about EM energy!. Do you think he did in 1971? I have no idea why you are so bent out of shape about that. You simply did not understand the paper you cited.



Of course he new about EM energy...He didn't have a name for it...he didn't know how it happened, and he didn't know what caused it, but of course he new...anyone who ever stood before a fire or saw visible light knew.

And of course I understood the paper...the actual paper that is...you on the other hand read with the intent of twisting, perverting, and distorting rather than actually learning something..which is why you remain a poser who believes that some forms of EM energy are exempt from the second law of thermodynamics.



SSDD said:


> Those definitions of a spontaneous process are fine too. There is *no outside source* of energy powering a penlight. Only the internal chemical reaction inside a battery that is *inside* a penlight is supplying energy. That is what makes the penlight a spontaneous process.



Of course there is...the reaction by which energy and heat are converted to light happens at the junction of the p-type silicon and the n-type silicon...that reaction is driven by energy from another place all together....and if you have really convinced yourself that anything about your LED penlight is spontaneous, then you are as stupid as I thought you were and more.  If you really believe your bullshit, then you are truly ignorant in the basics of not only thermodynamics, but physics in general.

This source, LibreTexts, explicitly says that you are wrong.  Once, more...

19.1: Spontaneous Processes

A spontaneous process is one that occurs naturally under certain conditions. *A nonspontaneous process, on the other hand, will not take place unless it is “driven” by the continual input of energy from an external source*.

I can only guess that you have no idea what that means.  Here, let me clue you in...take some baking soda, introduce it to some vinegar.  The resulting reaction s a spontaneous process.  No outside energy required.  A spontaneous process, as stated above, will not take place unless it is driven by the continual input of energy from an external source.  The reaction is happening at the junction of the p-type silicon and the n-type silicon...the battery is an external source and a continuous supply of that energy is required  to drive the reaction...cut the energy and the reaction stops post haste.


And there was this source as well..

Spontaneous and Nonspontaneous Processes | Introduction to Chemistry

A spontaneous process is capable of proceeding in a given direction without needing to be driven by an outside source of energy.

Same thing...spontaneous processes don't need to be driven by an outside energy source.  Once again...the reaction happens in the junction between p-type and n-type silicon...the battery is external to the location of the reaction and provides the power that crosses that junction...take away the battery and you have a spontaneous process...but it produces no light.  Without the external energy, the spontaneous process produces some normal silicon from the p-type silicon and the n-type silicon...no external energy required.

The level of intellectual dishonesty...or abject ignorance required to suggest that a battery is not an external energy source to the location where the reaction happens is astounding...

Then there was the entry from no less that Purdue University.

*spontaneous process*: a physical or chemical change that occurs without the addition of energy.

You really think no energy is being added?  Even if we go completely stupid and allow that your battery is not an external energy source...when the battery runs down, the reaction which converts heat and electricity to light stops...and will not begin again till such time as energy from an outside source is applied...

It is endlessly fascinating to watch the mental gymnastics and gyrations an inherently dishonest person will go through in an attempt to be right when they are so clearly wrong.  You are, at present, at the intellectual level of a 3 year old covered in chocolate who is adamantly claiming that he hasn't been eating chocolate.  Say anything....throw every bit of bullshit you possess at the wall and hope that something sticks..



Wuwei said:


> Your “smart photon” idea has no quantitative support. Your reasoning from day one via argumentum ad ignorantiam does not hold water.



I don't have a smart photon idea...that belongs to you warmers and luke warmers, who are of the same tribe.  I just have the statement of the second law of thermodynamics.  And as to quantitative support, I have nothing but quantitate support.  The word quantitive refers to the measure of a thing.  We have only measured energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....there are no measurements or observations of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.  If your beliefs had quantitative support we would not be having this discussion because the second law of thermodynamics would state that in some instances energy can move freely from cool to warm.
*


Wuwei said:



			Argumentum ad
		
Click to expand...

*


Wuwei said:


> *ignorantiam* (also known as: appeal to ignorance): The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.



That describes your argument perfectly.  You want a mechanism by which energy can't move from cool to warm.  You can't think of any such mechanism because at present, we don't really understand the mechanism by which an internal vibration of a molecule is translated to outgoing radiation in the first place.  You ignore the fact that we don't understand the underlying mechanism by which radiation is created and focus on the observed fact that that energy only moves from warm to cool and base your conclusion on the fact that I can't provide a mechanism by which it happens even though ever time we observe or measure the movement of energy, it is moving from warm to cool...never from cool to warm unless some external energy is being applied to make it happen.



Wuwei said:


> The fallacy is usually best described by, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



Precisely...we don't grasp the mechanism that prevents energy from only moving spontaneously from warm to cool, but it does so none the less...claiming otherwise is to completely ignore every observation and measurement ever made simply because we can't describe the mechanism that causes energy to move spontaneously in that direction only.




Wuwei said:


> The models of atomic physics were verified by many *experiments* (observations and quantitative measurements) to parts per billion. The observations and measurements support the EM radiation of all vibrating charges. Your “theory” does not obey the many experiments of atomic physics and is based on a logic fallacy.



The models have verified the models.  Really?..and that is good enough for you?  Now you are just mewling...

And I have no theory...and after all this time, for you to suggest that I do is just one more bald faced lie on your part.  I have the second law of thermodynamics which states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...sorry the law of thermodynamics doesn't agree with your hypotheses...or the models that "support" your hypothesis...Every observation and measurement ever made says that the second law is right.  What else do I need?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ..the reaction by which energy and heat are converted to light happens at the junction of the p-type silicon and the n-type silicon...that reaction is driven by energy from another place all together.


The system you are defining is simply an LED with nothing else. External to that LED system is a battery. I agree that is not spontaneous.

I told you many times that the system of a penlight has the battery included, and no further input energy.

The penlight system is also consistent with the following definition of spontaneity from Purdue that you cited:


SSDD said:


> *spontaneous process*: a physical or chemical change that occurs without the addition of energy.


You go through intense caustic verbosity on how *your* system is not spontaneous. I totally agree with you that *your* system is not spontaneous.

What you are doing is conflating your alternate definition of a different system with my penlight system which includes an internal battery. That is where your logic totally breaks down. You also ignored the above definition that a system can have chemical changes and still be spontaneous.



SSDD said:


> I can't provide a mechanism by which it happens even though ever time we observe or measure the movement of energy, it is moving from warm to cool...


It is true that the energy of heat is always observed flowing from hot to cold objects. But everyone knows that every measurement also shows that photons are free to flow unimpeded. Black body physics guarantees entropy always increases.



SSDD said:


> The models have verified the models. Really?..


Nope, that is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. The models of atomic physics were verified by many *experiments* (observations and quantitative measurements) to parts per billion.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have the second law of thermodynamics which you misinterpret to state that it is not possible for photons to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.



Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I agree with that statement as it is written.  Which part do you think I am interpreting?  And where did you get the idiot idea that photons are exempt from the second law...let me guess..you jumped on the crazy train with allen when wuwei jumped on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You have the second law of thermodynamics which you misinterpret to state that it is not possible for photons to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.
> ...



*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow*

I haven't seen anyone dispute that.
I've seen many dispute your claim that it's not possible for photons to flow from a colder body to a warmer body.

And so far, you haven't produced a real source that backs you up.

*I agree with that statement as it is written.  Which part do you think I am interpreting?  *

The flow of heat is equivalent to flow of photons part.

* And where did you get the idiot idea that photons are exempt from the second law*

I don't have that idea. The idea I hold is that all matter above 0K emits photons in all directions with no regard to warmer matter nearby or warmer matter billions of light years away billions of years in the future.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I haven't seen anyone dispute that.
> I've seen many dispute your claim that it's not possible for photons to flow from a colder body to a warmer body.



Got a source that says that photons are not energy?  I am sure that you don't because any form of radiation is happening in the form of photons...but feel free to provide a source that says that somehow radiation moves in some other form than photons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't seen anyone dispute that.
> ...



*Got a source that says that photons are not energy? *

No.

Got a source that says photons can only move from hotter matter to colder matter?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course...I just gave it to you...but here it is again.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I don't see any exclusion of photons there.  It says clearly that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...you are either saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool objects to warm objects and is exempt from the second law, or you are not.  All electromagnetic energy exists in the form of photons.  

So are you saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool to warm?  If not, explain how you believe photons can but EM energy can not when they are one in the same...a photon being nothing more than the smallest bit of EM energy possible.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I don't see any exclusion of photons there. It says clearly that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...you are either saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool objects to warm objects and is exempt from the second law, or you are not. All electromagnetic energy exists in the form of photons.
> 
> So are you saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool to warm? If not, explain how you believe photons can but EM energy can not when they are one in the same...a photon being nothing more than the smallest bit of EM energy possible.


You keep bringing the science down to grade school level. You must think deeper. Yes. Everyone knows photons and EM waves represent the same thing. Why do  you dwell on that? The overall guiding principle in the second law today is in terms of increasing entropy. Black body exchange of photons (or EM energy) between all objects always leads to increased entropy, and satisfies the second law. We went through several examples of that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*

Thanks. Now try again.

Got a source that says photons can only move from hotter matter to colder matter?
​*I don't see any exclusion of photons there.*​
And I don't see any mention of photons there.​​* It says clearly that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...*​
And we've previously seen sources posted here that say photons can flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. And you've failed to post any that say they cannot.

​*So are you saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool to warm?*​
Obviously. All matter above 0K emits photons.
Still waiting for your proof that says all matter above 0K emits photons unless some matter somewhere is warmer.​
*you are either saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool objects to warm objects and is exempt from the second law, or you are not.*

I'm saying photons can flow freely from cool objects to warm objects and the flow requires no exemption from the second law.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 19, 2018)

Oy

Nobody cares about the photons.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 19, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Oy
> 
> Nobody cares about the photons.



I love photons. They hit my retinas and I can see stuff. As far as this silly argument about photons moving from colder to warmer, how is it I can see the stuff in my refrigerator? My retinas are at 98.6F, the stuff in the fridge is about 35F, yet I can see it. All the lettuce and cheese and old spaghetti sauce and everything else are emitting photons that my eyes detect. How can that be?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 19, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> I love photons. They hit my retinas and I can see stuff. As far as this silly argument about photons moving from colder to warmer, how is it I can see the stuff in my refrigerator? My retinas are at 98.6F, the stuff in the fridge is about 35F, yet I can see it. All the lettuce and cheese and old spaghetti sauce and everything else are emitting photons that my eyes detect. How can that be?


That's actually a clever counterexample of the SSDD misunderstanding of the wording of the second law; 
_Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._

The true second law is in action when your eyes feel the cold from standing close, but if you want to live up to SSDD's standards you have to make it spontaneous. So put some ice cream on your counter top and do something else for a while like let your fingers be snapped by a mousetrap so you forget about the ice cream. Then when you next happen to see the ice cream it will be spontaneous energy flowing to your eyes. The ice cream might have become soggy, but it was all for science.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ..the reaction by which energy and heat are converted to light happens at the junction of the p-type silicon and the n-type silicon...that reaction is driven by energy from another place all together.
> ...



Yes, you have "told" me all manner of things.  Almost none of them correct.  You tend to talk out of your ass with no actual idea of what you are talking about.  This is a prime example.  Claiming that a battery powering a LED is a spontaneous process.  The idea is laughable.

 Even after I gave you definitions of what a was and was not a spontaneous process, you remained unable to differentiate between the two.  Clearly, you are unfamiliar with the terms and that would be because you have never had any actual education in physics.  This is the rock bottom foundation stuff...they teach grade school children this sort of thing and you have no grasp of it whatsoever.

To demonstrate that you are wrong, and all your buds who thank you and agree with you on the bullshit that you are spewing, I took the time to write to some physics professors from various respected universities.  I wrote them all the same note.  It went as follows.

_Greetings Dr. XXXX,_

_My name is XXXX XXXX.  If I may bother you for a moment, I have a physics question regarding spontaneous processes that I could find no direct answer for on the internet.  I understand that a spontaneous process occurs without being driven by an external energy source.  My question arises regarding LED lights.   I understand the reaction happens at the junction between a slice of p-type silicon and a slice of n-type silicon when an electric current is  applied.  My intuition tells me that if this was a spontaneous process, the LED would light up without an input from an electrical source, or the LED would stay lit if the electricity were cut off from the device.  I am old enough to know that intuition isn’t to be trusted I matters of science, so I am seeking answers from someone who knows far more on the topic than I._

_Thank you very much in advance if you have time to answer my question._

_XXXX  XXXX

At this point, I have received a few responses, although if I received 50, they would all say essentially the same thing...that being, that you were quite wrong.

From Dr. Sean P. Robinson, professor in the department of physics at MIT.  His email is spatrick@mit.edu

He responds:
_
Hi XXX,

This is a good question, as the most common explanations you can find on the internet leave out critical details, which leads to confusion if you take those incomplete stories too seriously.

First, the short answer (or, rather, short response, since you didn’t actually ask a question): uhh, yeah, it’s true that light emitting diodes don’t spontaneously glow on their own. You need to supply an external power source. The emission of light from the p-n junction in an LED is not a spontaneous process. I agree with you.

But I think you already knew that, and that wasn’t exactly your real question.  Before getting into the more detailed answer, a couple of clarifying points on your wording, just to make sure we’re on the same page:

The materials involved here are p-type and n-type semiconductors, yes. The most common semiconductor used in electronic devices is silicon, yes, especially in computer chips. But, the properties of the device depend on the choice of materials, and if you want your device to be a diode which emits light, making it an LED, then silicon doesn’t get the job done. The “light” in that case would be both very dim and deep into the infrared spectrum. There is a whole zoo of other semiconducting materials used for making a wide range of diodes/transistors/etc with different properties. LEDs of different colors use different materials. No visible-light LEDs use silicon.

You are correct that the important question here is about what is happening at the p-n junction. I guess you could call it a “reaction” is some general sense, but to be clear, this is not a chemical reaction between the two materials. It is an interaction between the charge carriers in each material, but chemically, the materials don’t change as they would in a chemical reaction. So, you can talk about a “reaction” being “spontaneous”, sure, I understand what you mean, but be aware that we’re not using those words in the same precise technical sense in which they are used in chemistry.

OK. Now, you’ve probably read that LEDs emit light when the mobile negative charges in the n-type semiconductor combine with the mobile positive charges in the p-type semiconductor, releasing energy as visible light. Your question (I think) is why the charges don’t just combine and emit light spontaneously; why does it require an external voltage?

One way to answer this is to realize that LEDS are just a specific type diode, and that mechanism of positive and negative charges combining across the p-n junction is how all diodes work, not just LEDs. (It’s just that in most diodes, the light emission is dim, not in a visible wavelength, and the mechanical arrangement of the junction and diode packaging doesn’t let the light out.) Once you have that one extra fact, then it becomes easier to search for answers on the internet, because you don’t have to restrict yourself to answers that are specific to LEDs. If you can find an answer to the same question for diodes (or any other device with a p-n junction, really), then you’ve answered it for LEDs, too. That said, here’s someone who asked the question on stackexchange and got what I consider to be a pretty good answer:

Why doesn't a diode or transistor get neutral?

Hope that helps,

++Sean Robinson


From Dr. Jolyon Bloomfield, also a professor in the physics department at MIT.

He responds:

Hi XXXX,

In an LED, you have an NP junction. In the N part, electrons are flowing at high energy. In the P part, holes are flowing at low energy. At the junction, electrons can "hop" from the high energy to the low energy, emitting light in the process.

Why doesn't this occur spontaneously, without any electrical input? The answer is that it does - but there's a price to be paid for doing so. When electrons hop from the N part to the P part, they create an electric field. That electric field makes it harder for future electrons to hop. Very rapidly, enough electrons have hopped from the N part to the P part that it's no longer energetically favorable to do so. By turning on a current, you drain electrons from the P part, and add them back to the N part, getting rid of this electric field, and allowing the process to continue happening.

I hope that helps.

Best,

Jolyon Bloomfield
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lecturer
MIT Physics Department
Concourse Learning Community
6C-433
(617) 253-7602

I pointed out this precise thing to you when I explained that you do, indeed, have a spontaneous process going on at the junction between the P silicon and the N silicon.  That spontaneous process produces a very thin sliver of normal silicon between the two  That is, as I pointed out, a spontaneous process  I went on to explain to you that if you want to get light out of the LED, then you must apply energy from an external source to excite the electrons moving between the P silicon and the N silicon...ie, an electric current.  

Just to clarify the point, I responded to his email as follows:

Dr. Bloomfield,  

Thank you so much for your response.  If I may, I would like to ask one point of clarification and then I promise to leave you alone.  If I am understanding you, the spontaneous process part of the process is the initial movement of electrons from the P part to the N part which forms a bit of plain old silicon between the two parts.  If, however, you wish to keep that process going, and actually produce light from the device, you must provide an outside energy source, ie an electric current which is not a spontaneous process.

Thank you again for your response, it is greatly appreciated

XXXX

To which he replied:

Hi XXXX

Yup, that's basically correct.

Cheers,

Jolyon Bloomfield


This response is from Dr. David P. Belanger, Distinguished Professor of Physics, Acting Dean, Physical and Biological sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara.  

He Responds:

Dear XXX

One of the most robust of scientific principles is the second law of thermodynamics, and spontaneous actions simply can't occur.  Sometimes, detailed interactions take place, but under close scrutiny, the second law always holds.  U.S. patents are always rejected for ideas that claim to violate the second law.  Hope that helps.  

Dave


Personally, I think he left of part of his thought and meant to say that spontaneous actions that move energy from cool to warm simply can't occur, but I am not going to bother him with clarification.  His stance on moving energy....any energy....in any form from cool to warm seems quite clear.  You can email him about it if you like.  His email address is daveph@ucsc.edu

I have known all along that I was right and you were wrong.  Even when you were given the definitions of spontaneous and non spontaneous processes, you did nothing but attempt to twist and distort those definitions in an attempt to make them agree with you.  

I do appreciate the discussion though, and it gave me the opportunity to prove beyond any doubt that you are nothing more than a poser who lacks even the basic knowledge in physics to differentiate between spontaneous and non spontaneous processes....a principle that is taught to middle school children.  And while you may have "experience" with LEDs, it is pretty clear that that experience hasn't extended beyond perhaps stocking them on the shelves of a Quickie Mart or perhaps you owned a toy robot with LED's for eyes.  Certainly you had no professional experience with them..




Wuwei said:


> It is true that the energy of heat is always observed flowing from hot to cold objects. But everyone knows that every measurement also shows that photons are free to flow unimpeded. Black body physics guarantees entropy always increases.



Once more, you demonstrate how you have no actual grasp of the topic.  If the energy of heat is always observed moving from hot to cold, then photons are always observed moving from hot to cold.  Perhaps you are describing some "smart" photon which knows whether it is a photon of light, or heat, or any of the various types of electromagnetic radiation and consults its rule book to see if it must obey the second law of thermodynamics.

Once more, what do you think any sort of radiative energy is, if not photons?

And no observation has ever been made of photons or of any other form of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm...and those people who think they have an example to the contrary are invariably wrong as stated in no uncertain terms by Dr. Belanger.  I suppose if some form of energy were exempt from the second law, he might have mentioned it...and certainly the second law itself would mention it.

Dr. Belanger pointed out your notion that photons are free to flow unimpeded was incorrect as well since in response to my inquiry relating to light emitting from an LED, his response was to immediately turn to the second law of thermodynamics which most certainly covers photons...and every other form of energy.





SSDD said:


> Nope, that is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. The models of atomic physics were verified by many *experiments* (observations and quantitative measurements) to parts per billion.



Really?  Show me a physical experiment which produces observations and quantitative measurements of energy moving, spontaneously, from cool to warm that are accurate to parts per 10, or parts per 100, much less parts per billion.

I would like to put up a quote by you from another thread which literally drips irony.

Scientific Method, 2016

My take on JC is that he is not just suffering just from ignorance or intelligence, but he is a bad case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He is locked on to a false idea and insults everyone that disagrees with him. He should be able to recognize that he is arguing with people that have more education than he has, but he fails at that.

Laughable is all I have to say about that.  Clearly, you don't possess anything like the education you would have people believe.  If you did, you would at least be able to differentiate between a spontaneous and non spontaneous process...and your posts across this board would not be littered with so many stark misunderstandings of the basic principles of physics.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You keep bringing the science down to grade school level. You must think deeper.



Funny...coming from someone who, at this point, 3 professors of physics at respected universities have said was wrong on a very basic topic in physics.  You aren't able to think deeper because you lack the education required to do so.  Let me know when you can at least differentiate between a spontaneous and non spontaneous process.



Wuwei said:


> Yes. Everyone knows photons and EM waves represent the same thing. Why do  you dwell on that? The overall guiding principle in the second law today is in terms of increasing entropy. Black body exchange of photons (or EM energy) between all objects always leads to increased entropy, and satisfies the second law. We went through several examples of that.



So now you are claiming again, that all EM radiation is exempt form the second law?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Oy
> ...



Typical statement made by someone without even the slightest grasp of physics or energy movement...much like wuwei and his belief that LED's are spontaneously moving energy from cool to warm.  You are seeing visible light emit from your refrigerator.  What is the temperature of the light source producing that light?  Open your refrigerator in a totally dark room and see how much energy moves from that cold refrigerator to your eye.  The light that you are seeing coming out of your refrigerator is coming from a light bulb whose filament is something in excess of 2000 degrees F...somewhat warmer than 35F wouldn't you say.

Science is rarely intuitive...it is best to actually learn some of it and then you won't make such uninformed comments...and you won't think that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That's actually a clever counterexample of the SSDD misunderstanding of the wording of the second law;
> _Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object._



No...it is just one more example of someone who doesn't have even a slight grasp of the physics of energy movement making a stupid statement based on intuition rather than any actual knowledge.

Like him, you are obviously uneducated...if you had even the smallest grasp of the topic, you would first wonder what the temperature of the source providing the light is...then you would realize that the light coming from the refrigerator comes form a source that is in excess of 2000 degrees...and wouldn't think that seeing cold stuff in your refrigerator is an example of energy moving from cool to warm.  How deep does your ignorance go wuwei?




Wuwei said:


> The true second law is in action when your eyes feel the cold from standing close, but if you want to live up to SSDD's standards you have to make it spontaneous. So put some ice cream on your counter top and do something else for a while like let your fingers be snapped by a mousetrap so you forget about the ice cream. Then when you next happen to see the ice cream it will be spontaneous energy flowing to your eyes. The ice cream might have become soggy, but it was all for science.



And what do you suppose the temperature of the light source that is reflecting off the ice cream is?  Set your ice cream on a counter in a completely dark room and see how much visible light flows spontaneously to your eyes you idiot.

Is there any doubt now that you are just one more internet poser who really doesn't know jack?   Basic mistake after basic mistake after basic mistake...and if you don't grasp the basics, you can't even begin to understand the more advanced topics...you are a religious zealot who has learned a few verses from your bible and that is the extent of your knowledge.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 20, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Oy
> ...


_how is it I can see the stuff in my refrigerator? My retinas are at 98.6F, the stuff in the fridge is about 35F, yet I can see it. All the lettuce and cheese and old spaghetti sauce and everything else are emitting photons that my eyes detect. How can that be?_
How can that be? Hahaha and Wuwei commented "That's actually a clever counterexample".
Showing how stupid both of you are. 
What do you think the light bulb which turns on when you open the fridge door is for?
Both of you qualify for the Darwin award


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> At this point, I have received a few responses, although if I received 50, they would all say essentially the same thing...that being, that you were quite wrong.



You didn't need to go to all that trouble because I already said in post #487,


Wuwei said:


> The system you are defining is simply an LED with nothing else. *External to that LED system is a battery. I agree that is not spontaneous.* .....
> 
> ..... You go through intense caustic verbosity on how *your* system is not spontaneous. I totally agree with you that *your* system is not spontaneous.



So I had previously agreed with the professors said. If that is your point, you wasted your time, not to mention the professor's time for conjuring up a non sequitur to your argument.

I already told you in post #187
_What you are doing is conflating your alternate definition of a different system with my penlight system which includes an internal battery. That is where your logic totally breaks down. You also ignored the above definition that a system can have chemical changes and still be spontaneous._

Dr Belanger simply recited the 2nd law that everyone knows, although he badly muffed his wording.



SSDD said:


> Dr. Belanger pointed out your notion that photons are free to flow unimpeded was incorrect



He certainly did not in the quote you gave.

Why don't you directly ask Dr Belanger, if black body radiation is forbidden from flowing from a cold body to a hot body. Or if the SB equation says that all black body radiation between objects is completely stopped when objects are at the same temperature. That is the whole issue, and would be much easier than dancing around it.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > At this point, I have received a few responses, although if I received 50, they would all say essentially the same thing...that being, that you were quite wrong.
> ...



Maybe you are just to f'ing stupid to figure out that no process with a battery connected to it is spontaneous....

We both know that you are stupid, and intellectually dishonest, but do tell me what this exchange means in your twisted mind.

Dr. Bloomfield,  

Thank you so much for your response. If I may, I would like to ask one point of clarification and then I promise to leave you alone. If I am understanding you, the spontaneous process part of the process is the initial movement of electrons from the P part to the N part which forms a bit of plain old silicon between the two parts. If, however, you wish to keep that process going, and actually produce light from the device, you must provide an outside energy source, ie an electric current which is not a spontaneous process.

Thank you again for your response, it is greatly appreciated

XXXX

To which he replied:

Hi XXXX

Yup, that's basically correct.

Cheers,

Jolyon Bloomfield


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

polarbear said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Did you catch the exchange where wuwei is trying to claim that the light emitting from an LED flashlight is a spontaneous process and the battery is not an external power source for the LED itself?

As to the refrigerator light....neither would ever have considered that the filament in the bulb inside the refrigerator is 2000+ degrees....absolutely no understanding of even the basics of  physics.

The stupidity is astounding.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Funny...coming from someone who, at this point, 3 professors of physics at respected universities have said was wrong on a very basic topic in physics. You aren't able to think deeper because you lack the education required to do so. Let me know when you can at least differentiate between a spontaneous and non spontaneous process.


You are lying again. The professors confirmed my post #487. 


SSDD said:


> So now you are claiming again, that all EM radiation is exempt form the second law?


Nope. Never did. Are you still claiming that accelerating charges can't radiate under certain circumstances?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That's actually a clever counterexample of the SSDD misunderstanding of the wording of the second law;
> ...


Geesh. I was joking on the spontaneity. I should have included a smiley.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Funny...coming from someone who, at this point, 3 professors of physics at respected universities have said was wrong on a very basic topic in physics. You aren't able to think deeper because you lack the education required to do so. Let me know when you can at least differentiate between a spontaneous and non spontaneous process.
> ...



Sorry, they did not.  They confirmed that, as I said, there is a spontaneous process where the p type silicon and the n type silicon combine to form some plain old silicon in the junction...but if you want to get light out of it, you must add power from an external source...here is a clue you idiot, they agreed that the battery... is an external source.



Wuwei said:


> Nope. Never did. Are you still claiming that accelerating charges can't radiate under certain circumstances?



Not me...the second law which Dr Belanger stated in no uncertain terms was never wrong.  You are the idiot who thinks you can move energy spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object..and not just move it...move it freely.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 20, 2018)




----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You should have asked if free energy of an isolated chemical process such as a battery is a spontaneous. 

My god, you ask obvious questions but don't understand their answers.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



You weren't joking any more on that error than you were on the idea that an LED represents spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm...you are just that stupid and now are trying to backtrack...the refrigerator error is no worse than failing to differentiate between a spontaneous process and a non spontaneous process.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Even that is not a spontaneous process...As I already pointed out to you...a spontaneous process is one that continues without the addition of energy from an outside source...when the battery goes dead, you must recharge it from an outside source...it is not spontaneous...it is stored energy.  You really are a putz...


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

polarbear said:


> _how is it I can see the stuff in my refrigerator? My retinas are at 98.6F, the stuff in the fridge is about 35F, yet I can see it. All the lettuce and cheese and old spaghetti sauce and everything else are emitting photons that my eyes detect. How can that be?_
> How can that be? Hahaha and Wuwei commented "That's actually a clever counterexample".
> Showing how stupid both of you are.
> What do you think the light bulb which turns on when you open the fridge door is for?
> Both of you qualify for the Darwin award


As I said it was a joke on spontaneity. I should have included this


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> As I said it was a joke on spontaneity. I should have included this



Bullshit...You thought that seeing stuff in the refrigerator was an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...

You said..

"That's actually a clever counterexample of the SSDD misunderstanding of the wording of the second law; "

You said precisely what you thought...once again, you jumped on the crazy train with someone who didn't have a clue because you also don't have a clue.

Weasel all you like..it's your nature, but the fact that you don't grasp even the basics of physics is out on display now.

_
_


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You weren't joking any more on that error than you were on the idea that an LED represents spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm...you are just that stupid and now are trying to backtrack...the refrigerator error is no worse than failing to differentiate between a spontaneous process and a non spontaneous process.


Nope. A system that includes a chemical free energy process with no external energy is spontaneous. That is what I described. Your system got rid of the chemical free energy process and made it external to the system. That is not spontaneous. 

Here, this is from wiki. I showed it to you before, but you must have forgotten:

A *spontaneous process* is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases* free energy* and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state.

*free energy* is the amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform. The concept is useful in the thermodynamics of chemical or thermal processes.

Try to understand it this time around.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Bullshit...You thought that seeing stuff in the refrigerator was an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...
> 
> You said..
> 
> ...



You have no sense of humor.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

Did you ask your professors yet if photons or EM radiation can't flow to warmer objects? Don't you think that would be a great question for you?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Did you ask your professors yet if photons or EM radiation can't flow to warmer objects? Don't you think that would be a great question for you?



No one is denying that Photons or EM radiation can flow from a cooler object towards a warmer object, but it doesn't slow down its cooling rate at all since it is *Initially* WARMER than the cooler object in the first place.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. A system that includes a chemical free energy process with no external energy is spontaneous. That is what I described. Your system got rid of the chemical free energy process and made it external to the system. That is not spontaneous.



Got to say, when you are wrong, you just don't stop digging do you?  Here is yet more information that you obviously didn't know.  When batteries are manufactured, they put the anode, cathode and electrolyte in the "can" and guess what?  The electricity has to be put in there from an outside source...the electricity is not spontaneously produced...charging is part of the manufacturing process...the energy is stored, not generated inside the battery.  

Got any more lame brained ideas about what constitutes a spontaneous process?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Did you ask your professors yet if photons or EM radiation can't flow to warmer objects? Don't you think that would be a great question for you?



When is EM radiation not photons?  When are photons not EM radiation?

And no...it would be a stupid question...The second law of thermodynamics answers that question and the answer is no.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> *free energy* is the amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform. The concept is useful in the thermodynamics of chemical or thermal processes.
> 
> Try to understand it this time around.



Alas, it is you who has failed to understand...a battery is a storage device...it is not a system that can produce anything on its own...The battery itself is not a spontaneous process....the electricity inside a battery has to be put there...the system does not produce it.  If you don't put the electricity in, you just have some parts that are capable of storing electricity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Did you ask your professors yet if photons or EM radiation can't flow to warmer objects? Don't you think that would be a great question for you?
> ...



*No one is denying that Photons or EM radiation can flow from a cooler object towards a warmer object*

SSDD denies that. Strenuously.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Who am I to argue with the second law of thermodynamics?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Greetings Doctor XXXXXX

I had a few quick questions about the 2nd Law.

If I have two identical objects in a vacuum, one at 500K and the other at 600K, next to each other,
are they both allowed to absorb and emit photons simultaneously?

Is the cooler object in anyway restricted from emitting by the presence of the warmer object?

Finally, when they achieve equilibrium, do they continue to emit photons or do they cease all emissions?



^
Much better questions to discover if your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law is correct.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why would that be a good question?  If he didn't agree with the second law, he could only give me an opinion since there is no actual observed evidence to the contrary.  I suppose a professor would be bright enough to acknowledge that it is what the models predict and not defend a theory to the bitter end, claiming it is fact like uneducated yahoos might.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Why would that be a good question?*

Because it gets to the heart of your confusion.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> When batteries are manufactured, they put the anode, cathode and electrolyte in the "can" and guess what? The electricity has to be put in there from an outside source...the electricity is not spontaneously produced...charging is part of the manufacturing process...the energy is stored, not generated inside the battery.


Zinc batteries are not “charged” by electricity, the chemicals are simply put in, but yes, whatever the manufacturing process of a battery is, they create a configuration of chemicals that are in an elevated energy state. The usable energy in that state is called free energy. So what is your point?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Did you ask your professors yet if photons or EM radiation can't flow to warmer objects? Don't you think that would be a great question for you?
> ...


I have answered your question several times. You are losing it. EMR and photons represent the same thing.

Of course it is a stupid question. What is even stupider is that you think they would answer “no” when every scientist has answered, “Yes” - that black body radiation is unrestricted in striking any other body. Why do you think those professors would go against all other scientists?

You are really going over the deep end.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> When batteries are manufactured, they put the anode, cathode and electrolyte in the "can" and guess what? The electricity has to be put in there from an outside source...the electricity is not spontaneously produced...charging is part of the manufacturing process...the energy is stored, not generated inside the battery.



Every penlight LED flashlight I have seen does not use rechargeable batteries. But yes, once the chemistry of the system stores the energy and the battery is in the hands of the consumer the energy is not generated, but it is transformed to electricity. So what is your point?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.


Yes, but SSDD doesn't comprehend that the warmer object out-radiates the cooler object.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > When batteries are manufactured, they put the anode, cathode and electrolyte in the "can" and guess what? The electricity has to be put in there from an outside source...the electricity is not spontaneously produced...charging is part of the manufacturing process...the energy is stored, not generated inside the battery.
> ...




The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 20, 2018)

polarbear said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Regards your comment, for sure, the light bulb is giving off higher energy photons. And they show up brightly when they hit my retinas. But what about the photons coming from my cold leftover lasagna? Has it been heated up by the light bulb? Are those photons of a higher or lower energy level than the ones given off by my eyeballs?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 20, 2018)

Can't stay. I will have to revisit


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..


Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

Here is another interesting idiocy in the “smart-photon” hypothesis.

Not only does the colder object have to stop radiating, but the hotter object has to dial down its radiation by the same amount that the colder object would radiate by the BB law.

That means there are SSDD “smart-photons” going both ways from each object.

Tell me SSDD how does the hot object "know" how much to dial down??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Here is another interesting idiocy in the “smart-photon” hypothesis.
> 
> Not only does the colder object have to stop radiating, but the hotter object has to dial down its radiation by the same amount that the colder object would radiate by the BB law.
> 
> ...



*Tell me SSDD how does the hot object "know" how much to dial down?? *

I've asked him that before.
He feels it's another unknowable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process...*

Let's talk about power sources. How far away can the "connection" be?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.
> ...



So you say...and I keep asking for an observed measured example and you don't seem to be able to provide any at all.  Unmeasurable, unobservable untestable models seem to be all you have...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Regards your comment, for sure, the light bulb is giving off higher energy photons. And they show up brightly when they hit my retinas. But what about the photons coming from my cold leftover lasagna? Has it been heated up by the light bulb? Are those photons of a higher or lower energy level than the ones given off by my eyeballs?



Grab your cold left over lasagna, take it into the hall closet, put a towel  at the base of the door so you have no light coming in and tell me how many photons you see coming off your cold lasagna.  If you see your lasagna, in the fridge, it is because light from a source in excess of 2000 degrees provided that light.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..
> ...




You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 20, 2018)

The entire AGW religion is solely based on computer models and nothing else.

Models the AGW cult program.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...


Going back to your fallacy again. 

*Argumentum ad* *ignorantiam* (also known as: appeal to ignorance): The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. 

The fallacy is usually best described by, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

All of science disagrees, but appeal to ignorance if you wish.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There are no external power inputs to a penlight. Look at this and tell me where you see an external power source.
penlight at DuckDuckGo


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Typical liberal...accuse your opponent of your precise behavior.  And absence of evidence when we are fully capable of measuring minute energy movements is evidence of absence.  If energy were moving in both directions, we could measure it.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



The LED is producing light...is the LED producing light on its own, or is the LED being powered by something outside itself.

Arguing that because they are all in the same container they constitute a spontaneous system is abject ignorance.  By that logic,  you could claim that a battery powered refrigerator cools spontaneously since everything required to make it work is in the same box, or that your car moves down the road spontaneously, rolling up hills on its own...everything required to move down the road, at least for a short period of time is contained within the same package...just like everything that is required for your penlight to produce light for a short period of time is contained in the same package.

Do you think you can put any process in a box and call it spontaneous?  

Here is perhaps a more complete explanation, in simpler, grade school level terms that you probably also can't, or won't understand.  You want to be right so badly that you have become blinded to the obvious.

Spontaneous Reaction - Chemistry Video

_"When we say spontaneous, just remember, we're going to say a reaction that requires no outside energy source is classified as a natural process. Think about it. Let's think of a boulder, a huge rock, rolling down a hill. We're going to say that huge boulder doesn't require any type of energy to roll down that hill. It's using its own momentum in order to do that. We're going to say that since it doesn't require any type of energy for it to happen, then it's a spontaneous reaction. On the flip side, let's say we have a reaction where we have to continuously feed it energy in order for it to occur. If you're supplying a continuous amount of energy to something, we're going to classify it as a non-spontaneous reaction. We're going to say non-spontaneous reactions are unnatural. They constantly need energy for them to occur. Let's say we want to run our car. Our car cannot spontaneously run itself without any type of energy. We have to give it a battery, we have to give it gasoline. Without these sources of energy, the car can’t ignite and start off and move on its own. Just remember, the movement of a car will be classified as a non-spontaneous reaction."_


By the same token, the light coming out of your penlight is also not a spontaneous reaction.  You have to constantly feed it energy and when the battery is dead, the reaction is over.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



How much light do you get out of your penlight when the battery is dead?  Non spontaneous processes, by definition,  require the constant input of energy.  Just because you put the battery in the same box with the LED does not mean that the LED is spontaneously producing light,  This is such basic stuff, that it is literally astounding that you aren't getting it.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


With that you just earned another Darwin award on top of the "I can see whats inside my fridge" example.
There are other ways to power an LED flashlight. Just because you can`t see it does not mean that a LED can light up without power. Like this kid that Google glorified for  re-inventing the Peltier effect by simply connecting an LED to it...no matter that all that kid had to do was to watch old Youtube videos showing just that.
Be that as it may, there is no way this flashlight will work if the heat sink is at the same temperature as the heat absorber:





But according to what you (and some other people) have been saying that should not matter.
You figure since photons can be emitted by anything above 0 degK and more of them the warmer the object, that the second law of thermo-dynamics does not apply. As long as you got photons you come up with this idiotic "extra energy", totally ignoring that energy is a work unit and that you need a potential energy *DIFFERENCE *to perform work. According to you *even more work* is performed when both objects have the same potential energy (at equal Temperature) because each one is emitting photons.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > I love photons. They hit my retinas and I can see stuff. As far as this silly argument about photons moving from colder to warmer, how is it I can see the stuff in my refrigerator? My retinas are at 98.6F, the stuff in the fridge is about 35F, yet I can see it. All the lettuce and cheese and old spaghetti sauce and everything else are emitting photons that my eyes detect. How can that be?
> ...


Reflected light.... is not the same as emitted light.  What your eyes see is the absences of specific bandwidths in the visible spectrum.  You guys need to get a new gig.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.  If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions.  The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable  model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...




What they need to do is stop posing as people who have a clue with regard to physics and actually learn some of the basic principles.  the more they talk, the more obvious it becomes that they really don't know jack.  According to wuwei's thinking, if you put all the components into one box, you suddenly make the output of whatever comes out of that box spontaneous....put a battery in a refrigerator and suddenly it spontaneously cools and the energy at a lower frequency being extracted from the inside of the refrigerator is actually making the mechanism warmer.....and since it is all in one package, your car spontaneously rolls up a mountain if you point it in that direction...and airplanes spontaneously fly because all the components are in the same package...and on and on and on...it is idiocy and ignorance of the highest order.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...


Nothing more than a mathematically constructed hypothesis based on assumptions.

This is the whole argument you guys have been fighting for weeks on.  This drives me nuts!

The whole point of my thread was the physical conditions of matter that allow or disallow absorption of photons (EM radiation). CO2 is energy saturated in our atmosphere and once the molecule is in the positive or high state it can not receive more energy before it releases energy and returns to its low (neutral) dipole state.

MY whole point being, that our atmosphere is now totally transparent to LWIR and it can not cause further warming at current levels of CO2 saturation.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 21, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...


_You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET".
So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated._
SSDD is not the one forgetting "NET" energy it`s your buddy Wuwei...and some of the other warmers.
Not only do they forget "NET" but they go so far *and change it to EXTRA energy.*
As if you could hide a clear violation of the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics behind the phrase "net energy". , performing work even when there is no energy potential difference.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


_once the molecule is in the positive or high state it can not receive more energy before it releases energy and returns to its low (neutral) dipole state._
Of course you meant to say the electron orbitals in a molecule and shortened that to "molecule", but even though that can be proven to be as you said with any absorption spectroscope it won`t matter to the warmers.
They rely on that you won`t be able to find a link to it with Google. The only place you can find it is in the operator manuals that come with these instruments. Perkin Elmer, Jarell Ash etc don`t publish the contents of these manuals for free on the internet. I wish they would because then it would be easy to shut up these bozos once and for all.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...


Quantum Mechanics is in its infant stage.  What we think we know is barely scratching the surface, but you are correct about the orbital and molecule terms. My Bad.. I will try harder in the future to be more precise.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What is the status of newly emitted CO2 from vehicles and powerplants? Is it also transparent to LWIR? I thought the whole argument about AGW was more CO2 led to more energy absorbed led to a warmer atmosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...


Here is the LOG of CO2... Its primary warming capabilities were spent long before reaching 250ppm





The fact that it is not positively affecting of H2O in our atmosphere and that H2O is acting as a damper restricting the warming is driving alarmists nuts. We have seen just 1/2 of the lab results warming in our atmosphere. This tells us water vapor is the control, not CO2.

Their modeling is a failure, as their outcomes compared with reality show...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> What is the status of newly emitted CO2 from vehicles and powerplants? Is it also transparent to LWIR?


Transparent as well...  Any thing we place into the atmosphere now will have little to no effect, <1.1 deg C per doubling.  This means a doubling to 820ppm will have less than a 1.1 Deg C rise.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 21, 2018)

Hey guess what I did find one:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1385/8945/files/210_manual_090607.pdf?4556440520457788278
_24
SECTION 3.2: Sensitivity Check / Optimizing the Flame
Sensitivity check
However, for elements requiring richer flames (including those requiring nitrous oxide), or if you are having
trouble achieving the sensitivity check, optimizing the flame may improve your results. Starting with the
burner head 4mm below the beam, light the flame and let the burner warm up a few minutes while aspirating
de-ionized water. Zero the instrument then aspirate your high standard. Slowly increase the fuel (turn the fuel
adjust counter clockwise) while watching the absorbance reading until you reach the best absorbance._
There it is. Of course the Darwin award winners can`t get it what the manual stated.
A fuel rich flame is cooler and the absorbance you get is better than at higher temperatures. Of course you also need a temperature high enough to atomize the substance you want to analyze


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Absorbed by what?  Long wave IR emitting from the earth?  Read a bit of data produced by engineers and manufacturers who produce infrared heating systems.  They have about a million hours of design, experiment, industrial, and residential application that demonstrates pretty clearly that air is not heated by infrared radiation.  Conduction and convection so overwhelmingly dominate energy movement from the surface to the top of the troposphere (where the greenhouse effect, and AGW are supposed to be happening) that the very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is laughable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.*





Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

*The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,*

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...


'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM.  It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

It is defined by an outside energy source creating WORK!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy* will not* flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

_bolding mine_

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM.  It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!*

_Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. _

Human skin is doing work to remove heat from the walls of the room?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



_"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy* will not* flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. _

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image. 
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Try again Todd...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.. AND yes the human heart is doing work...  But again you conflate the two... into an unrecognizable jumble...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



This is why I don't debate this stuff for long since you just ran away from the "refrigerator" link that doesn't agree with you. The link YOU posted in the first place.

Give it up Todd, you are evading the reality the concept can only work when there is* work added to it*.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


As the sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons all this is seeing is the photons emitted from all matter above 0K.  What it is not doing is warming from that lower temperature and lower energy photon from striking the sensor.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.. Now what can a more energized mass do with a lesser energized photon?  Does it reflect it? Absorb it? or does it cool the object it strikes by taking on the energy of the higher energetic state (this is called dampening) IF the photon is now taking on more energy to be re-emitted, then it is cooling the mass.

So what is your magical photon doing?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.*

You're the one claiming work has to be done for matter above 0K to emit.

*AND yes the human heart is doing work*

Excellent. So why are the walls radiating?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



*This is why I don't debate this stuff for long since you just ran away from the "refrigerator" link that doesn't agree with you.*

Ran away? LOL!





How does this disagree with me?

*"Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation"*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Your running in circles Todd...  enjoy you're run...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



*sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons *

I agree. Two way flow. Tell SSDD.

*With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.*

Which disproves SSDD's claims.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Bob said, as he ran away.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



It is clear that your understanding of the topic is so far from the level of the conversation, having principles explained to you is simply a waste of time.  I suppose nothing less than a direct response regarding the LED penlight will get through to you..and at this point, even that is doubtful.

So again, I contacted some professors of physics with this note:

Greetings Dr.XXX,

My name is XXX XXDX and if I may, I would like to ask a physics question.  Can any process that is connected to a battery, or other power source be considered to be a spontaneous process.  An LED penlight for example….can the light emitted from the LED be considered a spontaneous process?

Thank you in advance for sharing your time and knowledge.

XXXXXX


The first response was fromJoachim (Jimmy) Raeder, Professor of Physics, Department of Physics & Space Science Center
University of New Hampshire:

He Responds:

Nope, you need to press a button.  Nothing spontaneous about that.

Spontaneous processes usually happen on the quantum mechanical level, like the decay of a radioactive atom nucleus.

Joachim (Jimmy) Raeder
Professor of Physics, Department of Physics & Space Science Center
University of New Hampshire
245G Morse Hall, 8 College Rd, Durham, NH 03824-3525
voice: 603-862-3412  mobile: 603-502-9505  assistant: 603-862-1431
e-mail: J.Raeder@unh.edu
WWW: http://mhd.sr.unh.edu/~jraeder/tmp.homepage

I believe I pointed out that error in your thinking in post 417 where I pointed out that you would have to press a button which is not a spontaneous act...to which you, in your abject ignorance replied, put a piece of tape over the button if that bothers me....clearly unable to see that there is nothing more spontaneous about putting a piece of tape over the button than there was in pressing the button in the first place..and you might go back to assembling the penlight in the first place...what was spontaneous about that?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sorry guy, that sensor can detect two things.,,itself warming or itself cooling.  If it is pointed at something warmer than itself, it gains energy...if it is pointed at something cooler than itself, it loses energy to the cooler object...it converts the amount of, and rate of change across the sensor to a mathematical formula and produces a picture.

Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You can not accept basic principals.  Until you actually understand them it is pointless to continue...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect. *

You should contact the authors and explain that they were wrong to say "net".


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Actually, you should provide an observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy flow and prove me wrong...of course we both know that you can't do that so your infantile, impotent mewling juvenile responses are all that is left to you.  Have fun with it.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



If they accept basic principles, their religion becomes worthless....they are far to emotionally and intellectually (if you want to apply that word to either of them)  invested to risk that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The basic principals, as well as Science 24 May 1963, say that the walls of the room radiate
toward the warmer human. You agreed in post #570.

So what do I "not accept"?


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...







There aren't?  LED's need no power source.....like maybe an EXTERNAL battery?  Sure you want to go down that road?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There have been many, many, many sources posted that agree all matter radiates.
Many, many, many posted that agree that at equilibrium, objects emit and absorb at the same time.

You've provided zero sources that back up your claim about one-way only flows.
You've provided zero sources that back up your claim about radiation ceasing at equilibrium.

Go ahead, ask one of the Professors you've emailed directly if radiation ceases at equilibrium.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*If they accept basic principles, their religion becomes worthless....*

Religion? LOL!

I don't believe a dollar should be spent to save us from "man-made" global warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Interesting that this proves the dampening effect of lower excitement photons.  it is a rather unexpected outcome.. but there it is!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Interesting that this proves the dampening effect of lower excitement photons.*

That's funny.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Why would you need an "external" power source when batteries are INSIDE of it?

From your own link:



 

Batteries are DC, which means the energy flow is one way into the lightbulb.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

westwall said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He thinks that so long as they are all in the same box, that the LED must be lighting up spontaneously...he also thinks that since all the components of an airplane are in the same package that an airplane flies spontaneously, and that battery powered refrigerators cool spontaneously, and that cars spontaneously roll up mountains...as long as it is all in the same box....whatever it produces is spontaneous.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The batteries are in the same package so whatever it produces must be spontaneous according to him.  I, and a physics professor pointed out to him that the simple act of pushing a button makes it a non spontaneous process so he suggested taping the button down as if taping a button down were somehow a spontaneous act.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



These guys are very easily fooled by instrumentation.  They imagine that instruments are observing, and measuring all sorts of things that they aren't.  They really believe that the sensor in a camera pointed at an object colder than the camera is absorbing cold radiation from that object.    Of course, what would you expect from someone who is fooled by an LED penlight?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Why would you need an "external" power source when batteries are INSIDE of it?


Thank you. I agree. That is exactly the point I'm making to SSDD.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Nope, you need to press a button. Nothing spontaneous about that.



Look at the penlight posted in #588. That has a single push on push off power button. If you follow the thought of your professor, just push the button on, then leave it. It is spontaneous after that.

You are still having trouble understanding spontaneous chemical processes.

Student Resource Glossary
*galvanic cell:*_ a device in which chemical energy from a *spontaneous redox reaction* is changed to electrical energy that can be used *to do work*_

_http://www.distributionaccess.com/new/pdf/P52096-001.pdf
*Spontaneous chemical reactions* that liberate electrical energy are part of a class of reactions known as oxidation-reduction or REDOX reactions_.

Electrolytic Cells
_Voltaic cells are driven by a *spontaneous chemical reaction* that produces an electric current through an *outside circuit*. _

What is a Galvanic Cell? - Definition from Corrosionpedia
_A galvanic cell is an electrochemical cell that uses the transfer of electrons in redox reactions to supply an electric current. This cell is driven by a *spontaneous chemical reaction* that produces an electric current through *an outside circuit*._

The LED is an *outside circuit* which is a necessary part of the spontaneous process. Otherwise there is no spontaneous chemical reaction. Both the galvanic-cell and LED are enclosed in the penlight system and needs no outside energy. The system is doing work using the spontaneously generated electricity totally inside the penlight.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei writes,

"Look at the penlight posted in #588. That has a single push on push off power button. If you follow the thought of your professor, just push the button on, then leave it. It is spontaneous after that."

*spontaneous*

"coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: "

"(of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting."

Pushing the button on, destroys your spontaneous claim. It can't be spontaneous if it required a prior simulation (push button on) for it to work.

Please stop with your tortured explanations...….


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Wuwei writes,
> 
> "Look at the penlight posted in #588. That has a single push on push off power button. If you follow the thought of your professor, just push the button on, then leave it. It is spontaneous after that."
> 
> ...


I'm using the thermodynamic definition of spontaneous. You are not.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 21, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Great, you even highlighted it, saving me the trouble of doing it.
"A thermal sensor is capable only to a net thermal flux from the object* minus flux from itself*"
So why did you side with the warmers when SSDD said that a thermal sensor which is as warm (-or warmer) as (-than) the source is not capable to detect the heat coming from the source ? Still looking for a way to *actually detect  *these photons? Good luck !
They do exist, but they are incapable of performing work on the warmer object, meaning a rise in temperature not just a slower cooling of the warmer object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



*So why did you side with the warmers *

I'm siding with the people who understand that matter above 0K radiates in all directions, whether warmer matter is nearby or not.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you need an "external" power source when batteries are INSIDE of it?
> ...



What a dishonest person...

Yet another professor in physics says that you are quite wrong.

To my question, she replies:

This is a definitional question.  I would not describe light emission by an LED as spontaneous, because it requires an input of energy from the power source.

Laurie E. McNeil
Bernard Gray Distinguished Professor
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
CB #3255
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255
mcneil@physics.unc.edu
(919) 962-0963
https://users.physics.unc.edu/~mcneil/home.htm

Face it...you are wrong...and wrong because you simply don't have any grasp of physics at all.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> [ QUOTE="SSDD, post: 20414241, member: 40906"]Nope, you need to press a button. Nothing spontaneous about that.



Look at the penlight posted in #588. That has a single push on push off power button. If you follow the thought of your professor, just push the button on, then leave it. It is spontaneous after that.[/quote]

No it isn't...it is powered after that and when the battery dies, the reaction stops..becasue it is a powered reaction, not a spontaneous reaction.



Wuwei said:


> You are still having trouble understanding spontaneous chemical processes.



No...I understand perfectly...and all these college professors in physics are agreeing with me...you on the other hand are quite wrong.


You really should let it go rather than continuing to dig...the more you dig, the more obvious it becomes that you are just a poser who has no education in science...much less physics.

Let me remind you of this:  It doesn't get much more clear and yet, you continue to fail to grasp what it is saying.  It speaks volumes about you that you can't understand this.

_"When we say spontaneous, just remember, we're going to say a reaction that requires no outside energy source is classified as a natural process. Think about it. Let's think of a boulder, a huge rock, rolling down a hill. We're going to say that huge boulder doesn't require any type of energy to roll down that hill. It's using its own momentum in order to do that. We're going to say that since it doesn't require any type of energy for it to happen, then it's a spontaneous reaction. On the flip side, let's say we have a reaction where we have to continuously feed it energy in order for it to occur. If you're supplying a continuous amount of energy to something, we're going to classify it as a non-spontaneous reaction. We're going to say non-spontaneous reactions are unnatural. They constantly need energy for them to occur. Let's say we want to run our car. Our car cannot spontaneously run itself without any type of energy. We have to give it a battery, we have to give it gasoline. Without these sources of energy, the car can’t ignite and start off and move on its own. Just remember, the movement of a car will be classified as a non-spontaneous reaction."_


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei writes,
> ...



Oddly enough, in thermodynamics, spontaneous means the same thing...just one more example of you not knowing what the hell you are talking about...

I have to say though...it is entertaining to watch the mental gyrations and gymnastics you are performing in a failing effort to be right...it indicates some damned interesting psychology at work in that twisted mind of yours.


----------



## Crick (Jul 21, 2018)

He's interesting because he's correct.  He's refuted every piece of nonsense you've pushed.  You're a complete and utter failure.  You need to start over again and get a better grasp on what a real life consists of next time around.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> He's interesting because he's correct.  He's refuted every piece of nonsense you've pushed.  You're a complete and utter failure.  You need to start over again and get a better grasp on what a real life consists of next time around.



You guys really are lemmings aren't you.  It isn't enough that wuei has put his ignorance on display and made a complete fool out of himself...arguing his stupid, completely wrong point even when physics professor after physics professor after physics professor has said in clear terms that he, and all the goods agreeing with him and thanking him were wrong, now you have to go over the cliff with him making idiot lying claims that he has refuted anything.

You think a flashlight is a spontaneous process also?  You think a battery is not an external power source to an LED simply because it is is in the same box with the LED?  You think battery powered refrigerators spontaneously cool themselves because all the components are in the same box?  You think airplanes fly spontaneously because they are all in the same skin?  You think cars spontaneously roll up hills because all the parts are in the same package?

You really want to admit that your knowledge of physics is as pitifully lacking as wuwei's?  I mean, we know it is, but do you want to go on record supporting his belief in an argument put up by a top shelf troll who was clearly an idiot and was banned within a day or so of his showing up?  You really want to go down that road?

Personally, I would love it if you did..come on crick, tell us how light emitting from an LED that is powered by a battery is a spontaneous process...

Good job...and hey abu fork AKA rolling thunder says you are a winner...it must make you so proud.  

f'ing lemming.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> This is a definitional question. I would not describe light emission by an LED as spontaneous, because it requires an input of energy from the power source.



I agree with the professor. Emission by an LED is not spontaneous. You didn't ask the right question. Your problem in asking your professors penlight questions is that you are focusing on the LED when you should be focusing on the battery. Ask her if a battery discharging through a conductor is a spontaneous chemical reaction, and remind her of this:

Electrolytic Cells
_Voltaic cells are driven by a *spontaneous* chemical reaction that produces an electric current through an outside circuit. _

Look at the first pictures. The one with the caption GALVANIC CELL

_Energy released by spontaneous redox reaction is converted to electrical energy._

You can find lots of literature saying the same thing. That system is a battery with an “outside circuit”, a light bulb. There would be no spontaneous reaction at all without the light bulb. The LED is just a conductor with an interesting property.

Look at the second picture, an electrolytic cell. That is not spontaneous. You have been confusing these two quite different systems.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2018)

I agree with one of your professors that said that spontaneous processes that output energy are at the quantum level, such his example of nuclear, and also chemical. Look up “*Spontaneous emission*”, the process in which a quantum mechanical system transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon

Here are some examples of photons going from a cold to a hot substance spontaneously. Remember that in many examples, there is a non-spontaneous absorption of energy followed by a spontaneous emission.

*Fluorescence* is process that starts with a non-spontaneous absorption of EM radiation, followed by a spontaneous emission of EM radiation.

https://application.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527316698_c01.pdf
*Basic Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy*
_Emission of a fluorescence photon from the vibrational ground state of the first excited singlet state constitutes a spontaneous process_​
*Phosphorescence* is a cold chemical reaction spontaneously converted directly to light.
There are many examples of animal based phosphorescence, including fireflies, surface ocean algae, deep ocean creatures of all kinds, fungus.

Also look up *Chemiluminescence*. Found in many plants and seeds and man-made lightsticks that glow in the dark. At a camp you can hold a lightstick in your had while it illuminates a hot frying pan. 

All these examples show that EM radiation can flow spontaneously from a cold to a warmer substance. Some of the examples start with a non-spontaneous charging of energy in some fashion, followed by a spontaneous release. Other examples occur naturally.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > This is a definitional question. I would not describe light emission by an LED as spontaneous, because it requires an input of energy from the power source.
> ...



Sorry guy...you are wrong and are never going to be right.  When the battery dies, does the LED continue to emit light?  If it does, then you have yourself a spontaneous process...if it doesn't, then you are wrong and have been wrong all along.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I agree with one of your professors that said that spontaneous processes that output energy are at the quantum level, such his example of nuclear, and also chemical. Look up “*Spontaneous emission*”, the process in which a quantum mechanical system transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon
> 
> Here are some examples of photons going from a cold to a hot substance spontaneously. Remember that in many examples, there is a non-spontaneous absorption of energy followed by a spontaneous emission.
> 
> ...



Ands the stupidity just grows and grows...you think all chemical processes are spontaneous?  As the professor said...people who think they have found a way around the second law of thermodynamics are invariably wrong...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

I have proven my point...You were and continue to be wrong.  No point continuing with you since you aren't bright enough to get it, and in your dishonesty, will never admit that you are wrong even though multiple professors of physics have stated quite clearly that you are.

Enjoy your ignorance if if believing you are right when you aren't gets you though the night, then help yourself...it is gotten you to where you are right now with everyone but the most abject idiots seeing you for what you are..


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



If the free energy of a battery is depleted, you simply put in a new battery to start the spontaneous process again. You should have known that. 

Look, your professors and I are all in agreement. I told you that already. With them you put your focus on the LED. Of course the LED alone is not spontaneous, and your professors and I agree with that. It is the battery that has the spontaneous process and the LED simply completes the batteries circuit.  

All the references I gave you say you are wrong.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 22, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nobody said that matter above 0K does not radiate. You made that up. How do you get from  photons radiating from a cooler object not being able to perform work on a warmer one to "matter above 0K does not radiate in all directions, whether warmer matter is nearby or not"?...as if anyone would need to claim that matter above 0K does not radiate in some directions. Like all the other warmers you go off on that tangent every time you were debunked.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with one of your professors that said that spontaneous processes that output energy are at the quantum level, such his example of nuclear, and also chemical. Look up “*Spontaneous emission*”, the process in which a quantum mechanical system transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon
> ...



No, many chemical process require energy input like electrolysis. Some provide energy output, like a battery. I certainly agree with the professor again. 

Are you now saying you disagree with the links I provided? Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and in general Chemiluminescence are all said in the literature to be *spontaneous*. Do you disagree with those references? 

You reply with your usual insults, but no science rebuttal to those references.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I have proven my point...You were and continue to be wrong. No point continuing with you since you aren't bright enough to get it, and in your dishonesty, will never admit that you are wrong even though multiple professors of physics have stated quite clearly that you are.
> 
> Enjoy your ignorance if if believing you are right when you aren't gets you though the night, then help yourself...it is gotten you to where you are right now with everyone but the most abject idiots seeing you for what you are..



Just insults again. You are trying to make it personal but badly failing. Just what point have you proven? I have quoted references that provide well known science. Just where have your multiple professors stated that I was wrong? You don't even know how to ask the right questions. They proved my points much more than yours. Your last posts have no cogent thoughts, just insults.

My point remains: -- through spontaneous process such as galvanic cells, phosphorescence, fluorescence, and chemiluminescence, photons can radiate from cold to hotter objects.* It is the literature calling these reactions spontaneous, not just me. One of your professors called a definitional matter. Absolutely! But you choose to make up your own definitions.*

Have you ever used a chemical lightstick which you can hold in your hand that will illuminate something too hot to touch? That is an example that shows EM energy (photons) can move spontaneously from a cold object to a hot object.

The wording of the second law that says, "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object," must then refer to net energy, not just any energy such as photons from a lightstick. That is why the professor at the hyperphysics.com site added this wording:

_It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._​
*If you are going to go against the standard interpretation of the words of the 2nd law, you are going to have to understand that your are wrong.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I agree with one of your professors that said that spontaneous processes that output energy are at the quantum level, such his example of nuclear, and also chemical. Look up “*Spontaneous emission*”, the process in which a quantum mechanical system transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon
> 
> Here are some examples of photons going from a cold to a hot substance spontaneously. Remember that in many examples, there is a non-spontaneous absorption of energy followed by a spontaneous emission.
> 
> ...


You guys have no concept of reflected or refracted energy.. The 'light' is energy but just because you can see it does not mean the surface is absorbing it....  The conflation here is massive!


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> The 'light' is energy but just because you can see it does not mean the surface is absorbing it.


That is true, but a gray surface will both absorb some and reflect some. But even if reflection was 100% over all wavelengths, it still is an example of energy of a cold substance moving to a warmer substance. The 2nd law wording still must be carefully defined.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*Nobody said that matter above 0K does not radiate. *

SSDD says that all the time. Ask him.


----------



## Crick (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > He's interesting because he's correct.  He's refuted every piece of nonsense you've pushed.  You're a complete and utter failure.  You need to start over again and get a better grasp on what a real life consists of next time around.
> ...




Your comments once again show quite clearly that you have never had a course in thermodynamics or heat transfer.  You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  You've been refuted a hundred ways from Sunday.  But you insist.  Energy movement in the universe is all fucking magic to you.  What a pathetic moron you are.


----------



## Crick (Jul 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> You guys have no concept of reflected or refracted energy.. The 'light' is energy but just because you can see it does not mean the surface is absorbing it....  The conflation here is massive!



If the illuminated surface was anything but white (or whatever the color of the light) it was absorbing some of it.  A sixth grader would have known this Bobby.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 22, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You keep saying that he said...show me where he said it.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The 'light' is energy but just because you can see it does not mean the surface is absorbing it.
> ...


_But even if reflection was 100% over all wavelengths, it still is an example of energy of a cold substance moving to a warmer substance._
Absolutely ridiculous especially so when the person saying so claims to have a clue about physics.
Tell me how much energy was transferred to that 100% perfect reflector ( which by definition can`t absorb it)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*You keep saying that he said...show me where he said it.*

_Typical liberal...accuse your opponent of your precise behavior. And absence of evidence when we are fully capable of measuring minute energy movements is evidence of absence. If energy were moving in both directions, we could measure it. _

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.


_Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it... _

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

*No one is denying that Photons or EM radiation can flow from a cooler object towards a warmer object*

SSDD denies that. Strenuously.

_Who am I to argue with the second law of thermodynamics? 

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.
_
*
Got a source that says photons can only move from hotter matter to colder matter?*
_
Of course...I just gave it to you...but here it is again.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I don't see any exclusion of photons there. It says clearly that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...you are either saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool objects to warm objects and is exempt from the second law, or you are not. All electromagnetic energy exists in the form of photons. 

So are you saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool to warm? If not, explain how you believe photons can but EM energy can not when they are one in the same...a photon being nothing more than the smallest bit of EM energy possible. 

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review._

Those were just the last few days, in this thread. He's been saying it for years.
*

*


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2018)

polarbear said:


> _But even if reflection was 100% over all wavelengths, it still is an example of energy of a cold substance moving to a warmer substance._
> Absolutely ridiculous especially so when the person saying so claims to have a clue about physics.
> Tell me how much energy was transferred to that 100% perfect reflector ( which by definition can`t absorb it)



Ans: none.

The second law wording that SSDD holds dear is, "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object," Whether photons are absorbed or not is not the issue.  SSDD says that photons won't even go in that direction. Note my wording "moving to" not "absorbed by". 

Is it, as you say, "absolutely ridiculous"? You betcha. Take it up with SSDD, not me. I go with the physics definition of the 2nd law referring to net energy, not SSDD's silly misconceptions.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2018)

Crick said:


> Your comments once again show quite clearly that you have never had a course in thermodynamics or heat transfer.  You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  You've been refuted a hundred ways from Sunday.  But you insist.  Energy movement in the universe is all fucking magic to you.  What a pathetic moron you are.



Actually, I have never been refuted...and the only attempts you wack jobs have ever made have been with unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica models...hardly a refutation of anything....it is, however, a sad commentary on the state of science when models are accepted over observed reality.....


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Actually, I have never been refuted.



In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically *spontaneous*. They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.

A lightstick uses chemiluminescence... Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch?

That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.

You have been refuted whether you know it or not; whether you believe it or not.



SSDD said:


> ..and the only attempts you wack jobs have ever made have been with unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica models.



Nope the lightstick is observable, measurable, and testable, and it was used thousands of times by kids who know nothing about mathematical models.



SSDD said:


> it is, however, a sad commentary on the state of science when models are accepted over observed reality.....



It is a sad commentary on the state of your hubris to think you know more than 372 thousand physicists.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Thanks for Professor Raeder's email.
Seems like a nice guy. Here is a portion of my discussion with him

Me:

_Hello Professor Raeder_

_Sorry to disturb you.
I was wondering if you could help me with a simple physics issue.
During a discussion of global warming, someone claimed that back radiation 
didn't exist because radiation is not "allowed" to move from the cooler atmosphere
to the warmer surface of the Earth, because that would violate the 2nd Law._

_During this discussion it was also claimed that radiation only ever flows one way between two objects
and that if these objects ever achieve equilibrium, both objects cease radiating altogether._

_Any light that you could shed on this issue would be greatly appreciated.
Please enjoy your weekend and sorry again to intrude._

Professor Raeder:

*I have heard that one before.
There are two issues with this argument.
First, this is not black (or grey) body thermal radiation.  
If there are two bodies in a closed system, that is, some box around them that lets no energy in or out, heat will always flow from the hotter to the cooler body, 
also if it is transported by radiation, i.e., photons.  
However, once an equilibrium is reached, that is, both bodies have the same temperature, radiation still flows, but at the same rate in both directions...….*

*an IR photon leaving Earth will always go up, whereas the re-radiated photon has a 50% chance of going down.
Again, it’s more complicated, because the photon could be absorbed and re-radiated multiple times.
Still, some flow down.
Note, that in a real glass green house the temperature of the glass does not matter either, 
and on an atomic level the reflection of IR photons by glass is exactly the same (oscillating dipoles) as with greenhouse gases.*

Here's my follow up email...…

Me:

_One last small detail, if you could._
_The same person who believes downward IR violates the 2nd Law also thinks 
this Stefan-Boltzmann formula only shows one-way flow of energy. 




_
_That is, the warmer object in a two object system "dials down" emissions 
based on the temperature of the cooler object, rather than both objects radiating at the same time._

Professor Raeder:

*No, it does not dial down emissions.
Otherwise “thermal imaging” would not be possible, or take the remote thermometers.  Even if the inside of a room
is in thermal equilibrium, it still picks up the emissions from whatever you point it at.
The above equation just states that the net power flow P is the difference between the emitted power (T^4 part) and the absorbed part (T_c^4 part).*


See, if you ask the proper questions, you can get useful answers.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> See, if you ask the proper questions, you can get useful answers.



Kudos to you. I'm impressed that you did that. I was thinking of doing something similar, but didn't want to bother. I did actually get the professor in charge of the Hyperphysics site to add a caveat to his page covering the 2nd law, but SSDD dismissed that as opinion.

SSDD has shot himself in the foot many times, but never did realize it. This time he shot his foot with a nuke and has to take note. It would be very hard for him to smugly dismiss a person that he dared you to contact.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > See, if you ask the proper questions, you can get useful answers.
> ...



Based on his previous reactions when his sources ended up refuting his claims 
(Handbook of Modern Sensors, Hyperphysics etc.) he'll just ignore the info and double down on his epicycles.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 23, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Based on his previous reactions when his sources ended up refuting his claims
> (Handbook of Modern Sensors, Hyperphysics etc.) he'll just ignore the info and double down on his epicycles.


You are probably right. However I bookmarked this page to remind him when the next epicycle comes. Nobody will ever get him to agree with today's science. He's basically a troll with no self respect. But the basic idea is to play his game to let people know his mind is governed by his butt, and specifically that his idea of science is totally wrong. His minions will also probably follow him because they don't understand science either.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Professor Raeder:
> 
> *No, it does not dial down emissions.
> Otherwise “thermal imaging” would not be possible, or take the remote thermometers.  Even if the inside of a room[./quote]
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I have never been refuted.
> ...



No spontaneous process results in energy moving from a cool object to a warm object.  If you believe you are seeing such a thing, you are wrong.  If you have sufficient knowledge, you can examine any apparent movement of energy from cool to warm and discover why it is not spontaneous.  Can I examine every possible instance of apparent energy movement from cool to warm and determine why it didn't happen spontaneously?  No, I can't.  And you certainly can't..hell, you think a flashlight is a spontaneous process.

Do let me know when they change the second law of thermodynamics to exclude some forms of electromagnetic radiation...it should happen shortly after some actual observations are made of spontaneous two way energy movement...goobers believing they are seeing spontaneous two way energy movement and being fooled by their lack of knowledge into believing that it is spontaneous probably won't get the second law changed.

And pointing out that any number of physicists believe in a model is hardly evidence that the model is right.  By that token, you must agree that Christianity is absolutely correct because how many million believers are there?...follow that closely with islam...by your standards, either has enough believers to be considered absolutely correct.  The number of people who believe in a thing has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Based on his previous reactions when his sources ended up refuting his claims
> ...



I need no reminder that plenty of smart people are fooled by insturmentation....nor do I need a reminder that you believe that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and I already know that no spontaneous process results in the movement of energy from cool to warm....I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process.  This happens over and over and over in biological systems.  It is what leads creationists to believe that life itself could not arise on its own because of the second law of thermodynamics.  They see apparent order arising from chaos and fail to se that every non spontaneous process is proceeded by a spontaneous process.

In short.. they are fooled...just like you.  Don't feel alone, you have plenty of company.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sorry, that picture didn't refute anything...it was an illustration of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...nothing more and nothing less.  I am still waiting on that single observed and measured instance of spontaneous two way energy movement.

The mere fact that you think an illustration of a model is refutation of anything is just more evidence of how easily you are fooled.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Professor Raeder:
> ...



*Congratulations...you found an academic that is fooled by instrumentation because he doesn't understand how it works...climate science is rife with them, I see no reason academia wouldn't be either.*

I'm still waiting for you to find an academic who agrees with your unique viewpoint.

Maybe you should send some variation of my questions to the other academics you previously contacted?
Unless you prefer to be alone in your confusion?

*You may lack the education to understand why the movement from cool to warm is not a spontaneous process*

Dr Raeder too.

You notice his statement about equilibrium?

*But do let me know when the second law of thermodynamics is rewritten to exclude electromagnetic radiation...*

But the free flow of radiation in no way violates the second law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



* If you have sufficient knowledge, you can examine any apparent movement of energy from cool to warm and discover why it is not spontaneous.*

Ohhh, sounds interesting.
So explain why cool matter on the Sun's surface can emit toward hotter matter in the corona.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



*Sorry, that picture didn't refute anything...*

It's just another instance of a source you linked, to back up your claims, actually disagreeing with your claims.
That seems to happen a lot.

*it was an illustration of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model*

That reminds me, any other sources you want to share to back up your one-way only flow? 

*The mere fact that you think an illustration of a model is refutation of anything is just more evidence of how easily you are fooled.*

Me? That was the Handbook of Modern Sensors. If they don't know how their sensors work, we're in trouble.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No spontaneous process results in energy moving from a cool object to a warm object. If you believe you are seeing such a thing, you are wrong. If you have sufficient knowledge, you can examine any apparent movement of energy from cool to warm and discover why it is not spontaneous. Can I examine every possible instance of apparent energy movement from cool to warm and determine why it didn't happen spontaneously? No, I can't. And you certainly can't..hell, you think a flashlight is a spontaneous process.
> 
> Do let me know when they change the second law of thermodynamics to exclude some forms of electromagnetic radiation...it should happen shortly after some actual observations are made of spontaneous two way energy movement...goobers believing they are seeing spontaneous two way energy movement and being fooled by their lack of knowledge into believing that it is spontaneous probably won't get the second law changed.



*No spontaneous process results in energy moving from a cool object to a warm object.*​
You must have forgotten. A lightstick uses a spontaneous chemiluminescence process... Have you ever seen a kid with a chemical lightstick? You can hold it in your hand, and it will illuminate something too hot to touch? That refutes your claim.



SSDD said:


> And pointing out that any number of physicists believe in a model is hardly evidence that the model is right. By that token, you must agree that Christianity is absolutely correct because how many million believers are there?...follow that closely with islam...by your standards, either has enough believers to be considered absolutely correct. The number of people who believe in a thing has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.



You used a metaphysics argument a few weeks ago. Now you are using a religious argument. It might be more appropriate to stick with physics if you can.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I need no reminder that plenty of smart people are fooled by insturmentation....nor do I need a reminder that you believe that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and I already know that no spontaneous process results in the movement of energy from cool to warm....I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process. This happens over and over and over in biological systems. It is what leads creationists to believe that life itself could not arise on its own because of the second law of thermodynamics. They see apparent order arising from chaos and fail to se that every non spontaneous process is proceeded by a spontaneous process.



Don't forget the spontaneous lightstick that most kids understand.

I see you are appealing to religious arguments again. Try to understand and use physics in action. Even kids can observe it.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I have never been refuted.
> ...


*Stupidity is indeed unlimited. *
_In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically *spontaneous*
They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.
Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch
That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim....._
And *it takes that kind of stupidity *to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one *can be achieved with no effort *since it must be a spontaneous process because photons can be radiated at it.
Hahaha I would like to see how a 0.1 eV photon can bump up the energy level of an electron`s orbital to 10 eV




meaning it has been absorbed and raised the temperature as a result of a spontaneous process.
All the while you and the other idiots who agree with you have been pretending to understand not just basic physics, but also quantum physics.
The latter has to be re-written from:
Electrons in atoms and molecules can change (make _transitions_ in) energy levels by emitting or absorbing a photon (of electromagnetic radiation),* whose energy must be exactly equal to the energy difference between the two levels.*
To Wuwei et al:
Electrons do* not not transition* to discrete energy levels but can be at any energy level and *it is no longer required that the photon`s energy is exactly the same as the energy difference * as previously stated having to be E2-E1=hv. We have proven this because we could shine a lightstick at a 2500 deg Tungsten filament .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



_And *it takes that kind of stupidity *to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one *can be achieved with no effort *_

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2018)

polarbear said:


> *Stupidity is indeed unlimited. *
> _In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically *spontaneous*
> They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.
> Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch
> ...


You lost track of the argument. The lightstick simply proves that photons from a cold object can strike a hot object; no more no less. The proof is for SSDD who doesn't believe what a kid would believe. Furthermore SSDD disputes that chemiluminescence is spontaneous. At least you know that. 

For you to claim stupidity puts you at the same level as SSDD as far as understanding the issues.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I need no reminder that plenty of smart people are fooled by insturmentation....nor do I need a reminder that you believe that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and I already know that no spontaneous process results in the movement of energy from cool to warm....I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process. This happens over and over and over in biological systems. It is what leads creationists to believe that life itself could not arise on its own because of the second law of thermodynamics. They see apparent order arising from chaos and fail to se that every non spontaneous process is proceeded by a spontaneous process.



You are misreading my message to Tod. 
I was largely referring to the the fact that Prof Raeder (your contact) essentially said,

For a substance at temperature T₁
and the background at temperature T₂.

Emission: Rₑ = e σ T₁⁴

Absorption: Rₐ =e σ T₂⁴

The net rate of EM energy exchange:

*Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = e σ T₁⁴ – e σ T₂⁴ = e σ (T₁⁴ -T₂⁴) *​
That verifies what I and science know, not what you were seeking. It is a major fail for your own source of authority to deny what you have been so rabidly and falsely claiming.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dr Raeder too.
> 
> You notice his statement about equilibrium?



Yeah..I know what the models predict...I also know that the models aren't real and that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured evidence that even hints that they are,



Toddsterpatriot said:


> But the free flow of radiation in no way violates the second law.



Maybe it doesn't violate your fantasy version of the second law, but it damned sure violates the actual version...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You must have forgotten. A lightstick uses a spontaneous chemiluminescence process... Have you ever seen a kid with a chemical lightstick? You can hold it in your hand, and it will illuminate something too hot to touch? That refutes your claim.



You think a light stick is a spontaneous process?  Of course you do...hell you think a flash light is a spontaneous process.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You used a metaphysics argument a few weeks ago. Now you are using a religious argument. It might be more appropriate to stick with physics if you can.



Nope...just pointing out the logical fallacy that you believe is a rational argument.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I need no reminder that plenty of smart people are fooled by insturmentation....nor do I need a reminder that you believe that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and I already know that no spontaneous process results in the movement of energy from cool to warm....I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process. This happens over and over and over in biological systems. It is what leads creationists to believe that life itself could not arise on its own because of the second law of thermodynamics. They see apparent order arising from chaos and fail to se that every non spontaneous process is proceeded by a spontaneous process.
> ...



Only an abject idiot would think that a light stick is a spontaneous process...the same sort of idiot that would think that a flashlight is a spontaneous process.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I need no reminder that plenty of smart people are fooled by insturmentation....nor do I need a reminder that you believe that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and I already know that no spontaneous process results in the movement of energy from cool to warm....I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process. This happens over and over and over in biological systems. It is what leads creationists to believe that life itself could not arise on its own because of the second law of thermodynamics. They see apparent order arising from chaos and fail to se that every non spontaneous process is proceeded by a spontaneous process.
> ...



Yep....seen the bad math...sorry, if that were the SB law, it would be written that way.  Writing net doesn't make net real in reality...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Raeder too.
> ...



*Yeah..I know what the models predict...*

Not only that, Dr. Raeder agrees. Einstein too.
You have any Professors who agree that photons only flow from hot to cool?
Any that agree that objects cease to radiate at equilibrium?

*Maybe it doesn't violate your fantasy version of the second law, but it damned sure violates the actual version...*

Too identical objects, one at 500K, the other at 250K.
The hotter object radiates 16 times as much toward the cooler object as it receives back.
How does that violate the actual 2nd Law?

Maybe you should ask Dr. Raeder?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Maybe you should share your definition of "spontaneous process"?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process.


So what if a non spontaneous process preceded it. .... It is the spontaneous process of chemiluminescence that is important, not what happened before it. That is all that matters in the second law.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Only an abject idiot would think that a light stick is a spontaneous process...the same sort of idiot that would think that a flashlight is a spontaneous process



Why do you think a lightstick or any sort of biological luminescence is not a spontaneous process? Simply because a non spontaneous process may have preceded it at one time? We are talking about a physics definition of chemical spontaneity. You can't change a definition and reinvent physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Yep....seen the bad math...sorry, if that were the SB law, it would be written that way. Writing net doesn't make net real in reality...



Wow, the irony of it....You think a professor that you wrote to and referenced is doing bad math.

I told you I agree with the professor, now you don't agree with him. Really ironic.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *No, it does not dial down emissions.
> Otherwise “thermal imaging” would not be possible, or take the remote thermometers.  Even if the inside of a room[./quote]
> *
> Congratulations...you found an academic that is fooled



No, you found the academic. He showed you are the fool.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


_Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?_
So you finally admit it. Who said that a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object you ask.
*Every *GW idiot did and agreed with it:
Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still «  Roy Spencer, PhD
*Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still*
And now you are all squirming..."No we never said that" and pretend  the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate and not about increasing the temperature. 
That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument which all of you used every time the heat transfer from cold to hot was debunked.
If any of you were not so stupid and realize what the difference between a black body and a gas is you would not be stuck and would have known which conforms with the equation you kept quoting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*So you finally admit it*

Finally admit what?

*Every GW idiot did and agreed with it:*

I'm a rabid anti-AGWer.

* and pretend  the whole argument is only about radiation being able to propagate *

At the moment, I'm pointing out SSDD's radiation idiocy. The one that you claim to never have seen.

If you want to talk about the existence of back-radiation and what it does to the Earth, I'd be happy to join.
I just want to make sure you agree that SSDD's silly misinterpretation of the 2nd Law is idiotic.

*That`s why you cling so desperately to that "intelligent photon" strawman argument *

Strawman? LOL!
SSDD seriously believes that because the 2nd Law says heat only moves from warm to cold, that
a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted toward some bit of cooler matter or not emitted toward some warmer bit of matter.

* realize what the difference between a black body and a gas*

But we do. You're still not helping SSDD's moronic misunderstanding though.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"
You are the one who keeps telling me that he said it. Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?
Why should I have to spend all that time it would take to find it while you got a whole collection of such absurd statements...or so you say.
Now to your beloved back-radiation:
It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation, ab-using the StB equation. It can only tell you where the equilibrium temperature would *eventually *be ( how much time is that?)...*as long as you can manage to keep everything involved constant*. Anything else and better *needs a lot more* than just the StB equation and these idiotic photon "experts" who keep quoting it. All the "climate scientists" have to offer is a consensus within themselves and nothing more.And that is how "hot" the planet "might" be in 2100 using deceptive statistical methods.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"*

Yes, that's what he means when he says a photon can never go from a cooler source to a warmer target.

* Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?*

If the other examples of his confusion, from this very thread, aren't enough for you to admit he's talking out of his ass, what will one or one hundred more examples accomplish?

*It is just as absurd to claim that you could calculate by how much the earth gets heated in a certain number of years with back radiation*

Speaking of strawmen, I'll wait for your link to me claiming that...…….


----------



## polarbear (Jul 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well can you link me to a post# where he said it or not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Sure, right after you admit the other examples I posted show that he's wrong.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Which example is that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"



This is what Tod is referring to. It's based on SSDD saying that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has never penetrated earth. Since the CMB is cold, 2.7K it should not hit the earth which is at 300K according to SSDD. However a sane person says the CMB penetrating the warm atmosphere and hitting a warm radio telescope dish on earth proves that EM energy from a very cold source can strike a much warmer earth.

SSDD thinks somehow the CMB knows not to hit earth when it is billions of light years away from us and happened billions of years ago. That was said here for example:

Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect


Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly...CMB is a vibrating system...the vibrations from that system resonate in the radio frequencies...a different system...that is how they were able to detect CMB via radio waves while not actually receiving CMB.
> ...



This whole thing was a tedious discussion that the CMB proves that photons from a cold object can hit a warmer object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"
> ...



Thanks.
There is also a thread(or threads) where he specifically said that a photon won't be emitted today
if billions of years in the future, billions of light years away, it would hit warmer matter. 
He went into how time is meaningless to something traveling at the speed of light, so it isn't predicting anything. The epicycles were especially thick in that thread.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"
> ...


That link you gave me is to post #63 in the Greenhouse Effect thread. I don`t see anything there from SSDD on the entire page. Am I supposed to spend *my time* looking for it going through each and every page?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> That link you gave me is to post #63 in the Greenhouse Effect thread. I don`t see anything there from SSDD on the entire page. Am I supposed to spend *my time* looking for it going through each and every page?



My gosh, chill out. When I click on it I get #1249. I get the same thing from Tod's link.

For your convenience I also included the text in my link.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 26, 2018)

Spare me that "chill out" crap. As if I would sit here and click + read through over 60 pages of bullshit all the way to page 125 only to find more bullshit (while I am supposed to prepare supper for my kids)
SSDD never said there that a 3 degK photon can not reach the detector and he sure as hell did not say it can`t reach the earth. You were arguing what it takes to detect it


----------



## polarbear (Jul 26, 2018)

All the while all of you "experts" were googling radio telescopes you argued that such a (3 degK) can do a *spontaneous* energy transfer to a warmer object which in that case would be the 300 Ghz LNA.
If it could do it spontaneously then an LNA would not need a power supply. You think you could still detect an extremely low dB signal like that if you cut the power supply of the LNA?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> All the while all of you "experts" were googling radio telescopes you argued that such a (3 degK) can do a *spontaneous* energy transfer to a warmer object which in that case would be the 300 Ghz LNA.
> If it could do it spontaneously then an LNA would not need a power supply. You think you could still detect an extremely low dB signal like that if you cut the power supply of the LNA?


Its funny to watch these people implode due to the basic physics they don't know...

Without work being done, we can not detect these low energy photons because they are cooler than the object they strike..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > All the while all of you "experts" were googling radio telescopes you argued that such a (3 degK) can do a *spontaneous* energy transfer to a warmer object which in that case would be the 300 Ghz LNA.
> ...



*Its funny to watch these people implode due to the basic physics they don't know..*

You're funny.
Tell me more about "covailent" bonds repelling photons.

*Without work being done, we can not detect these low energy photons because they are cooler than the object they strike.*

Hey, nitwit, who said anything about detecting them? SSDD says they can't be emitted toward warmer matter.
And you said "covailent" bonds prevent these "cooler" photons from hitting warmer matter.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 26, 2018)

You still have not been able to link me to a post where SSDD said that: "photons can`t be emitted toward a warmer matter" and change the subject every time I ask you for it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> You still have not been able to link me to a post where SSDD said that: "photons can`t be emitted toward a warmer matter" and change the subject every time I ask you for it.




_Typical liberal...accuse your opponent of your precise behavior. And absence of evidence when we are fully capable of measuring minute energy movements is evidence of absence. If energy were moving in both directions, we could measure it. _

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

What did he mean here?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2018)

polarbear said:


> You still have not been able to link me to a post where SSDD said that: "photons can`t be emitted toward a warmer matter" and change the subject every time I ask you for it.



_Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it... _

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

Or here?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 27, 2018)

polarbear said:


> And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"
> You are the one who keeps telling me that he said it. Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?



They are constantly going on about what photons do and what photons don't do.  I pointed out that if you accept the existence of photons as science describes them, then a photon is an entity that travels at the speed of light, and according to science, exists simultaneously across the entire span of its path.  That being the case, words like time, future, distance, etc have no meaning to such an entity.  The rest is their own interpretation on what I said.  Since they can't argue against what I am saying, they add paragraphs of color to my comments and argue against their own words, not mine.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 27, 2018)

By the way, to you yahoos out there...and you know who you are.  I sent an email to the dear professor and congratulated him on misinforming you regarding the second law.  He provided a rather long defense of what he said to you ..textbook stuff and all, but in the end, regarding the second  law, he said:

_" Physics is based in observations and experiment.  Any law of physics only stands as a hypothesis that can in principle be falsified by experiment.  The laws that we accept are those that have withstood many attempts to falsify them.  Thought experiments don’t count, only real measurements. "_

Here is a newsflash for you...mathematical models are mind experiments.  Till such time as real measurements of spontaneous movement of energy between objects of different temperatures is observed and recorded, the second law will continue to say what it says and actually mean what it says.

So I repeat...no spontaneous process results in a transfer of energy...of any kind to an object of a higher temperature.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 27, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Spare me that "chill out" crap. As if I would sit here and click + read through over 60 pages of bullshit all the way to page 125 only to find more bullshit (while I am supposed to prepare supper for my kids)
> SSDD never said there that a 3 degK photon can not reach the detector and he sure as hell did not say it can`t reach the earth. You were arguing what it takes to detect it


Chill out again. You haven't followed the history. He was deflecting to the detector and forever avoiding direct questions about the CMB hitting the atmosphere and dish reflector first.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 27, 2018)

polarbear said:


> All the while all of you "experts" were googling radio telescopes you argued that such a (3 degK) can do a *spontaneous* energy transfer to a warmer object which in that case would be the 300 Ghz LNA.
> If it could do it spontaneously then an LNA would not need a power supply. You think you could still detect an extremely low dB signal like that if you cut the power supply of the LNA?



Of course there is a tuned amplifier that the dish focuses to. SSDD wants you to think that all the radiation physics is at the amplifier. It's the radiation path that comes before the amplifier that is in question.

You are still missing the gist of the argument. Here is a simple question that underlies pages of argument.
Do you think distant 2.7K black body radiation can go through a *300K atmosphere, and hit a 300K dish*. Do you consider that as radiation from a cold source hitting a warmer object (the air and dish)?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> By the way, to you yahoos out there...and you know who you are. I sent an email to the dear professor and congratulated him on misinforming you regarding the second law. He provided a rather long defense of what he said to you ..textbook stuff and all, but in the end, regarding the second law, he said:
> 
> _" Physics is based in observations and experiment. Any law of physics only stands as a hypothesis that can in principle be falsified by experiment. The laws that we accept are those that have withstood many attempts to falsify them. Thought experiments don’t count, only real measurements. "_
> 
> ...



The professor is correct again. Everyone who understands physics understands that. That doesn't apply to just the second law. It applies to every law and model. It also applies to quantitative measurements that accelerating charges always radiate EM energy.

What is incorrect is your interpretation of what Dr. Raeder said. He did not say math models are mind experiments. It is well known that radiation exchange between all objects does not defy any observation or measurement that created the mathematical model, but is a necessary result of accelerating charges.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> By the way, to you yahoos out there...and you know who you are.  I sent an email to the dear professor and congratulated him on misinforming you regarding the second law.  He provided a rather long defense of what he said to you ..textbook stuff and all, but in the end, regarding the second  law, he said:
> 
> _" Physics is based in observations and experiment.  Any law of physics only stands as a hypothesis that can in principle be falsified by experiment.  The laws that we accept are those that have withstood many attempts to falsify them.  Thought experiments don’t count, only real measurements. "_
> 
> ...



_Any law of physics only stands as a hypothesis that can in principle be falsified by experiment.  The laws that we accept are those that have withstood many attempts to falsify them. _

I agree. I especially like this one.

*Stefan*-*Boltzmann Law*, which says that the total energy radiated from a blackbody is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

Any luck finding an academic who isn't fooled by instrumentation and who agrees with your claim
that photons are only allowed to move from hot to cold?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> The professor is correct again. Everyone who understands physics understands that. That doesn't apply to just the second law. It applies to every law and model. It also applies to quantitative measurements that accelerating charges always radiate EM energy.



 Being ignorant and a dupe is just a way of life for you, isn't it?  Do you think for a second that all those quantitive measurements you hold so dear were made with instruments at ambient temperature, or heaven forbid, were actually warmer than the emitters they were measuring?  Are you that ignorant?  They were, without fail, measured with cooled instruments.  

The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you are a poser with no actual education in the sciences whatsoever.



Wuwei said:


> What is incorrect is your interpretation of what Dr. Raeder said. He did not say math models are mind experiments. It is well known that radiation exchange between all objects does not defy any observation or measurement that created the mathematical model, but is a necessary result of accelerating charges.



What he said required no interpretation.  That is a large part of what makes you so stupid...you think everything requires interpretation of some sort.  Is a mathematical model an actual experiment that yields observed results?  Of course it isn't.  It is a thought experiment.  Do you think it isn't a thought experiment because it is written in the form of a mathematical formula rather than in english, or french, or german?  Is there any limit to your ignorance?

And again, your measurements were made with cooled instruments which just bear out what I have been saying all along...you are just not bright enough to look that far into the experiments...you are the sort who jumps on the crazy train with anyone who tells you that a flashlight is a spontaneous process.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Being ignorant and a dupe is just a way of life for you, isn't it? Do you think for a second that all those quantitive measurements you hold so dear were made with instruments at ambient temperature, or heaven forbid, were actually warmer than the emitters they were measuring? Are you that ignorant? They were, without fail, measured with cooled instruments.



If you reread my post you would see that I was referring specifically to the measurements of  accelerated charges. You don't need cooled detectors to see bremsstrahlung, synchrotron radiation, or radio transmitters. Those are examples of radiation from accelerating charges. Both classical Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics have mathematical models, verified by measurements, that quantify that radiation.



SSDD said:


> What he said required no interpretation. That is a large part of what makes you so stupid...you think everything requires interpretation of some sort. Is a mathematical model an actual experiment that yields observed results? Of course it isn't. It is a thought experiment. Do you think it isn't a thought experiment because it is written in the form of a mathematical formula rather than in english, or french, or german? Is there any limit to your ignorance?



Of course what he said requires no interpretation. But you nevertheless are doing that to a ludicrous extent.

To wit: The accepted mathematical models in physics are never ever "thought experiments". The rigorousness of mathematics encodes the plethora of experimental measurements to very exacting expressions that can be quantitatively tested against experiments. For you to equate casual language to the precision of mathematics shows your total lack of understanding of what the hard sciences are.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So I repeat...no spontaneous process results in a transfer of energy...of any kind to an object of a higher temperature.


Not even a light stick? Did you look up chemiluminescence. It is a spontaneous process that can emit radiation to any object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So I repeat...no spontaneous process results in a transfer of energy...of any kind to an object of a higher temperature.
> ...



He never did share his definition of spontaneous. What is he afraid of?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 27, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He never did share his definition of spontaneous. What is he afraid of?


I don't think he is afraid of sullying his reputation as the village idiot. He's probably running out of bad ideas.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > He never did share his definition of spontaneous. What is he afraid of?
> ...



He's looking for a definition that doesn't conflict with one of his recent claims.
Looking and looking and looking and looking...…….


----------



## SSDD (Jul 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> To wit: The accepted mathematical models in physics are never ever "thought experiments". The rigorousness of mathematics encodes the plethora of experimental measurements to very exacting expressions that can be quantitatively tested against experiments. For you to equate casual language to the precision of mathematics shows your total lack of understanding of what the hard sciences are.



So by all means, lets see that observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously in two directions....if it isn't born out by observation, it is a model and models without corresponding observations and measurement are though experiments.  

And we both know that there are no measurements of energy moving in spontaneously in both directions between objects of different temperatures...ergo..thought experiment.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So I repeat...no spontaneous process results in a transfer of energy...of any kind to an object of a higher temperature.
> ...



Nope...not even a light stick.  As I said, anyone who believes they have seen energy move spontaneously between two objects of different temporaries is not only wrong...he is an idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > To wit: The accepted mathematical models in physics are never ever "thought experiments". The rigorousness of mathematics encodes the plethora of experimental measurements to very exacting expressions that can be quantitatively tested against experiments. For you to equate casual language to the precision of mathematics shows your total lack of understanding of what the hard sciences are.
> ...



*lets see that observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously in two directions...*

Let's see your observed, measured example of objects at equilibrium ceasing radiating.....first.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 27, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...


LOL...

The state of the receiving matter determines if it will absorb, reflect, or scatter the energy..  You still don't understand this very simple concept...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*The state of the receiving matter determines if it will absorb, reflect, or scatter the energy..*

What state of matter repels the photon?
Help me understand your simple concept.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 27, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Since no one has defined exactly what a photon is, what exactly do you believe a photon to be.   Without a clear frame of reference all that will happen is the Todd 'semantics'  game...

Is it energy?  Is it matter?  Is it subatomic material?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Since no one has defined exactly what a photon is, what exactly do you believe a photon to be.*

It's that thingy that's emitted by cooler matter and repelled by warmer matter.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 27, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Since no one has defined exactly what a photon is, what exactly do you believe a photon to be. Without a clear frame of reference all that will happen is the Todd 'semantics' game...
> 
> Is it energy? Is it matter? Is it subatomic material?


Look up "Standard Theory" You should know that if you know anything about physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Nope...not even a light stick. As I said, anyone who believes they have seen energy move spontaneously between two objects of different temporaries is not only wrong...he is an idiot.


I have seen energy from a lightstick hit a warmer surface. Why don't you think it is spontaneous? 

So, you think one of the professors you contacted is an idiot. Why don't you contact the remaining approx. 371,999 professors and call them all idiots too.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So by all means, lets see that observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously in two directions....if it isn't born out by observation, it is a model and models without corresponding observations and measurement are though experiments.
> 
> And we both know that there are no measurements of energy moving in spontaneously in both directions between objects of different temperatures...ergo..thought experiment.


I saw it in a spontaneously glowing lightstick. Haven't you seen one?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Since no one has defined exactly what a photon is, what exactly do you believe a photon to be. Without a clear frame of reference all that will happen is the Todd 'semantics' game...
> ...


I know what it says and the hypothesis is not settled science...  If you all have a warped view and an unrealistic understanding I wont go into a discussion on it...

You guys cant even understand reflection and refraction or why a cooler body can not warm a warmer one...  I think its funny that you all believe a low temperature/low energetic wave will warm an object..  Aim you IR thermometer at a cube of ice in a freezer and let me know when your aiming beam melts the ice cube...


----------



## polarbear (Jul 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Spare me that "chill out" crap. As if I would sit here and click + read through over 60 pages of bullshit all the way to page 125 only to find more bullshit (while I am supposed to prepare supper for my kids)
> ...


*He was deflecting to the detector and forever avoiding direct questions about the CMB hitting the atmosphere and dish reflector first.*
Hahaha I`m not surprised that someone who starts a discussion in Hippie slang would not have a clue about the function of a microwave dish and the LNA.
All the dish does is reflect and focus the microwaves into the wave guide of the LNA which amplifies it.
So what exactly does a "chilled out" Hippie think is going on when the CMB "hits" the atmosphere and the reflector?
...other than being able to pass through the atmosphere and then being reflected by the parabolic dish?


----------



## polarbear (Jul 27, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > You still have not been able to link me to a post where SSDD said that: "photons can`t be emitted toward a warmer matter" and change the subject every time I ask you for it.
> ...


You don`t know? Anyway he did not say to what you inflated it.
All he did was challenging you to show him how you would *measure *the energy which is transferred in the direction from cold to warm and that he would accept an actual measurement with an instrument capable of doing so as evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*You don`t know?*

I know, do you?

*Anyway he did not say to what you inflated it.*

He does, all the time.

*All he did was challenging you to show him how you would measure the energy which is transferred in the direction from cold to warm*

He says you can't measure it, because no photons are ever allowed to move from colder matter to warmer matter. Do you agree that photons will only move one way between objects of different temperatures?

Do you agree that no photons travel between identical objects at identical temperatures?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 28, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Since no one has defined exactly what a photon is, what exactly do you believe a photon to be. Without a clear frame of reference all that will happen is the Todd 'semantics' game...
> ...



Care to hazard a guess as to why they don't call it standard reality?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 28, 2018)

polarbear said:


> .....
> So what exactly does a "chilled out" Hippie think is going on when the CMB "hits" the atmosphere and the reflector?
> ...other than being able to pass through the atmosphere and then being reflected by the parabolic dish?


That is exactly the point. SSDD doesn't believe that the CMB can hit the dish at all. SSDD believes radiation from a cold object can never ever hit a warmer object. 

On the other hand you agree that distant 2.7K black body radiation can go through a 300K atmosphere, and hit a 300K dish. So you believe what physicists believe that BB radiation can hit any objects at any temperatures.

The argument is not about the detector, it's about SSDD's misinterpretation of the 2nd law.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Care to hazard a guess as to why they don't call it standard reality?


Because it's physics, not metaphysics. 

If you disagree that the chemiluminescence of a lightstick is not spontaneous, you haven't given a reason why you think that.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Care to hazard a guess as to why they don't call it standard reality?
> ...



As I said, only idiots think that they have found a means to spontaneously move energy from cool to warm.  Any instance that appears to be so, under proper scrutiny will invariably turn out to be not spontaneous. 

As much as I would love to defeat your idiotic arguments once again, alas I don't have time...summer is in full swing and with it, summer parties and festivals...and I am playing with 4 bands at present and have no time to tear your arguments down. 

I stand with the second law of thermodynamics which states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm.  Do let me know if they change the law before I get back to you.   Till then, just the thought of people believing that they have found an instance where energy flows spontaneously from cool to warm gives me a daily chuckle.

By the way...reality is defined as that which exists objectively and in fact.  Since no actual evidence exists for your belief in spontaneous two way energy flow, I am afraid that you are the one leaning more towards metaphysics....your belief is positively religious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*As I said, only idiots think that they have found a means to spontaneously move energy from cool to warm. *

Idiots, Professor Raeder, every academic in the world. Weird.

Any luck finding an academic that agrees with your one-way flow theory?
Any book that you can link that will help your claim? Hmm...….

* Till then, just the thought of people believing that they have found an instance where energy flows spontaneously from cool to warm gives me a daily chuckle.*

You mean besides energy from the Sun's surface spontaneously flowing to the hotter corona?
You mean besides energy from the Earth's surface spontaneously flowing to the hotter thermosphere?


----------



## polarbear (Aug 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


It was just days ago that Wuwei declared that Quantum Physicists have it all wrong, because it is not necessary to match the energy increase with a corresponding  energy quantum...he can show them how to do that using quanta of a much lower energy.
And today according to you and your childish coronal heating theory the Physicists who are exploring where the energy comes from to heat the sun`s corona are wasting their time:
The Mystery of Coronal Heating | Science Mission Directorate
and:
Best Evidence Yet For Coronal Heating Theory
*Best Evidence Yet For Coronal Heating Theory Detected by NASA Sounding Rocket*
_Scientists have recently gathered some of the strongest evidence to date to explain what makes the sun's outer atmosphere so much hotter than its surface. The new observations of the small-scale extremely hot temperatures are consistent with only one current theory: something called nanoflares – a constant peppering of impulsive bursts of heating, none of which can be individually detected -- *provide the mysterious extra heat.*_
According to self opinionated physics "experts" like you and Wuwei they are all idiots who need to get it explained: "coronal heating is a simple case of spontaneous energy transfer from a colder mass to a hotter one". Wowei!!! That ought to nail it. No need for further research, the science has been settled by you and Wuwei.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> As I said, only idiots think that they have found a means to spontaneously move energy from cool to warm. Any instance that appears to be so, under proper scrutiny will invariably turn out to be not spontaneous.


More ad hominem to all scientists again. You have proven that you can't give proper scrutiny to chemiluminescence which is spontaneous, as defined by physics.



SSDD said:


> As much as I would love to defeat your idiotic arguments once again, alas I don't have time...summer is in full swing and with it, summer parties and festivals...and I am playing with 4 bands at present and have no time to tear your arguments down.


Have a fun summer and be sure to come back with more idiotic arguments that we can bash down.



SSDD said:


> I stand with the second law of thermodynamics which states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm. Do let me know if they change the law before I get back to you.


I stand by the second law too. But you don't since you don't understand it.



SSDD said:


> By the way...reality is defined as that which exists objectively and in fact. Since no actual evidence exists for your belief in spontaneous two way energy flow, I am afraid that you are the one leaning more towards metaphysics....your belief is positively religious.


All sorts of evidence shows that EM radiation can flow anywhere until it is absorbed. Now you are calling physics metaphysics. You have positively no physics arguments left. Just dogma.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 1, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



You have it exactly right. However this chilled out hippie thinks that you haven't chilled out yet. 

What the "_the cold CMB being able to pass through the atmosphere and then being reflected by the parabolic dish"_ means is that you disagree with SSDD. That is good.

Namely: cold radiation has been observed to hit a warmer surface. Scientists agree with that but not SSDD. 

I already told you all that in post #697. Why do you ask the same thing again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*And today according to you and your childish coronal heating theory*

I have no theory of coronal heating. I don't care how it is heated. Not a bit.

I'm exploring SSDD's theory of one way only flow of photons.

Does a 400K body prevent a 200K body from emitting toward it? SSDD thinks it does.


----------



## Wuwei (Aug 1, 2018)

polarbear said:


> It was just days ago that Wuwei declared that Quantum Physicists have it all wrong, because it is not necessary to match the energy increase with a corresponding energy quantum...he can show them how to do that using quanta of a much lower energy.


Nope, I never said nor implied that QM is wrong. That's SSDD's dogma. Give me a link.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Does a 400K body prevent a 200K body from emitting toward it? SSDD thinks it does.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Any luck finding an academic who agrees with your "one-way photons"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Do bodies at equilibrium cease radiating? SSDD thinks so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > As I said, only idiots think that they have found a means to spontaneously move energy from cool to warm. Any instance that appears to be so, under proper scrutiny will invariably turn out to be not spontaneous.
> ...



I think Professor Raeder's betrayal broke poor old SSDD's heart...……
I wonder if he'll ever post another source?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 10, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I think Professor Raeder's betrayal broke poor old SSDD's heart...……
> I wonder if he'll ever post another source?



If he wants success, he should avoid sources from universities. He might have better luck if he asked high school science teachers to support his redesign of physics.


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2018)

co2, there is not enough to radiate heat. it is also impossible for co2 to trap heat, there is not enough, and if co2 was ever a problem, we could use dry ice to cool the hot spots, dri ice is co2? odd, huh


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Professor Raeder:
> ...



An oldy but a goody......

*One thing to keep in mind is that all non spontaneous processes in nature are proceeded by a spontaneous process...do I expect you to know what that means?  *

Does this mean that if I point a flashlight at a cool object, the cool object is allowed to absorb the photons and then re-emit toward a warmer object?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> An oldy but a goody......
> 
> *One thing to keep in mind is that all non spontaneous processes in nature are proceeded by a spontaneous process...do I expect you to know what that means? *
> 
> Does this mean that if I point a flashlight at a cool object, the cool object is allowed to absorb the photons and then re-emit toward a warmer object?


That statement  by SSDD is pretty vacuous. He does not understand what spontaneous means in physics definitions .

If you look up key words "_luminescence spontaneous cold radiation"_ in Google you find lots of sites call it *cold-body radiation *or simply *cold radiation*.

For example in wiki you will find this definition,
_Luminescence is *spontaneous *emission of light by a substance not resulting from heat; it is thus a form of *cold-body radiation*. ... This distinguishes luminescence from incandescence, which is light emitted by a substance as a result of heating._​
This definition clearly shows that energy from a cold source can hit a warmer object. But when I posted this before, he simply went away.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2018)

Spontaneous is defined in physics as: arising from internal forces or causes; independent of externalagencies; self-acting.

Cold body radiation, or cold body radiation may be caused by chemical reactions, electrical energy, sub atomic motions or stress on a crystal...none of which can be deemed spontaneous...or self acting.  

Sorry guy...once more, you can't get around the second law.....only fools of the first order believe that they can...energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered to a more ordered state.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Spontaneous is defined in physics as: arising from internal forces or causes; independent of externalagencies; self-acting.
> 
> Cold body radiation, or cold body radiation may be caused by chemical reactions, electrical energy, sub atomic motions or stress on a crystal...none of which can be deemed spontaneous...or self acting.
> 
> Sorry guy...once more, you can't get around the second law.....only fools of the first order believe that they can...energy does not move spontaneously from a less ordered to a more ordered state.



After an outside source, like a flashlight, adds energy to an object, the object is allowed to, spontaneously, 
emit photons toward warmer matter.

Right?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Spontaneous is defined in physics as: arising from internal forces or causes; independent of externalagencies; self-acting.
> ...



I know that you aren't the brightest bulb in the box, but even you should be bright enough to grasp that spontaneous, meaning no assistance from outside sources, means that once an OUTSIDE source adds energy to an object, spontaneity is no longer possible. 

 That doesn't seem like such a hard concept to grasp even for borderline idiots such as yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



* means that once an OUTSIDE source adds energy to an object, spontaneity is no longer possible. *

If I add energy to an object, with my flashlight, the object can't spontaneously emit?

Please explain then, how it does emit.   Or explain that it doesn't.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Cold body radiation, or cold body radiation may be caused by chemical reactions, electrical energy, sub atomic motions or stress on a crystal...none of which can be deemed spontaneous...or self acting.



Wrong again. You always made up your own definitions in physics. That is another of your rewriting the terms of physics. No physicist agrees with your colloquial use of the word "spontaneous". Here is the definition of spontaneity that PHYSICISTS use"

_A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state._​
 Least you fly off the handle and say, "Energy is never free blah blah" The definition is talking about Gibbs free energy. It's a thermodynamic term, not another colloquial term you can redefine for your pleasure.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> once an OUTSIDE source adds energy to an object, spontaneity is no longer possible.


 Really SSDD; that is total bullshit. You are making things up again. 

Here is an example. When you shine a bright light on a phosphorescent material it stores energy in atomic excited states. That is NOT SPONTANEOUS. External work is being done on the system.

When you  remove the external light, the atoms emit light as they more slowly return to their ground states. That IS SPONTANEOUS because internal work is being output. That internal energy is called Gibbs Free Energy. See my previous post.

Geez learn some thermodynamics. It's easy to look these things up if you know what to look for.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cold body radiation, or cold body radiation may be caused by chemical reactions, electrical energy, sub atomic motions or stress on a crystal...none of which can be deemed spontaneous...or self acting.
> ...



luminescence (luminosity) - Memidex dictionary/thesaurus

*Luminescence*
emission of light by a substance not resulting from heat; it's thus a form of cold body radiation. It can be caused by chemical reactions, electrical energy, subatomic motions, or stress on a crystal. This distinguishes luminescence from incandescence.

And the fact is wuwei, that you are the one who just makes shit up as necessary...like your comment HERE to Thresha91203 on the other thread claiming that spectroscopes don't measure the difference between input radiation and it's own internal radiation.... It measures the sum of those two...which doesn't even begin to describe how a spectroscope works.  You regularly just make stuff up in an effort to make a point..or take information completely out of context....you are, in fact, a liar, imminently stupid, or both.


​


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> When you  remove the external light, the atoms emit light as they more slowly return to their ground states. That IS SPONTANEOUS because internal work is being output. That internal energy is called Gibbs Free Energy. See my previous post.



I do enjoy watching you try to dance your way around the second law of thermodynamics and try to prove that energy moves spontaneously and freely between warm and cold objects....and the people at the lab that I show your posts to also enjoy it very much...you, and your explanations for how things that can't be observed, measured, or tested really are is like a daily sitcom.  Keep up the good work...I am sure that you haven't even begun to tap the depths of your imagination.  Tell me again how spectrometers work....that was a good one.


----------



## Crick (Oct 30, 2018)

Any lab that would give you a job beyond janitor is at risk of losing their licenses.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*means that once an OUTSIDE source adds energy to an object, spontaneity is no longer possible. *

If I add energy to an object, with my flashlight, the object can't spontaneously emit?

Please explain then, how it does emit. Or explain that it doesn't. 

Oh, come on, don't avoid the questions.

Maybe the guys in your lab can help you answer?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Your post is a bit wacky. We are talking about the *spontaneity *of luminescence, and you simply give a dictionary definition of luminescence and digress.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I do enjoy watching you try to dance your way around the second law of thermodynamics and try to prove that energy moves spontaneously and freely between warm and cold objects....and the people at the lab that I show your posts to also enjoy it very much...you, and your explanations for how things that can't be observed, measured, or tested really are is like a daily sitcom. Keep up the good work...I am sure that you haven't even begun to tap the depths of your imagination. Tell me again how spectrometers work....that was a good one.



You keep trying to make it about me. It is the science of the last century that you are attempting to ridicule. You are trying to reinvent science. The discussion is not about how you think vs what I think, or what Crick or Tod thinks. It is about how you think vs what the whole body of physicists came to understand using observed, measured experiments over the past hundred years. When you no longer have a cogent "retort" against science, you always revert to ridicule, as seen by your recent posts. That is your Troll mind controlling you. Try to calm down and ask yourself why you are doing this.

.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> Any lab that would give you a job beyond janitor is at risk of losing their licenses.




Still waiting for either a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, or a peer reviewed, published paper which empirically quantifies the claimed warming due to man's activities and ascribes them to so called greenhouse gasses?  

Considering the fact that you actually believe such things exist suggest that your opinion on anything even approaching science is highly questionable...as is the opinion of anyone who might agree with you.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Your post is a bit wacky. We are talking about the *spontaneity *of luminescence, and you simply give a dictionary definition of luminescence and digress.



You claimed that the definition I provided of luminescence, or cold body radiation was made up...clearly you are wrong..then I pointed out your propensity to simply make shit up if you think it will further your argument...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You keep trying to make it about me. It is the science of the last century that you are attempting to ridicule.



It is about you..and what you are willing to believe without the first shred of observed, measured evidence...and about observable, measurable evidence that you are willing to discount because it doesn't agree with what you believe...and believe is the operative word here...faith...

And in case you haven't been tracking the sheer volume of junk science that has been foisted on the world in the past century, a great deal of the science of the past century is worth of ridicule.



Wuwei said:


> You are trying to reinvent science.



Simply not true...but do feel free to show me anything that I have suggested that runs afoul of any physical law. You are the one who doesn't seem willing to accept the statements of physical laws and feels the need to place conditions...add or subtract as necessary in order to conform to your belief.



Wuwei said:


> The discussion is not about how you think vs what I think, or what Crick or Tod thinks. It is about how you think vs what the whole body of physicists came to understand using observed, measured experiments over the past hundred years.



You keep talking about all this observed, measured evidence but don't seem to be able to produce any of it, and what you do produce, you clearly don't understand what it is showing you.



Wuwei said:


> When you no longer have a cogent "retort" against science, you always revert to ridicule, as seen by your recent posts. That is your Troll mind controlling you. Try to calm down and ask yourself why you are doing this.



You are hardly an analyst sparky...and as I have said...stupidity on the order that you demonstrate isn't worthy of patience.  And don't give yourself credit for having the ability to even raise my heart rate by one beat...you simply aren't that important in the scheme of things...imagine, believing that you have the ability to have any effect whatsoever on my physiology...is there any limit to what you are willing to tell yourself..and actually believe?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You claimed that the definition I provided of luminescence, or cold body radiation was made up.


What you made up is that it is not spontaneous because energy was supplied before it became spontaneous. That is made up. Phosphorescence, for example, is spontaneous after the source is removed. That is according to all scientist. Energy or work must be supplied first, and that is consistent with the first law of thermodynamics. 



SSDD said:


> .then I pointed out your propensity to simply make shit up if you think it will further your argument...


Links?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It is about you..and what you are willing to believe without the first shred of observed, measured evidence...and about observable, measurable evidence that you are willing to discount because it doesn't agree with what you believe...and believe is the operative word here...faith...



Nope it's not about me. It's about all scientists who believe the same thing I do. 



SSDD said:


> Simply not true...but do feel free to show me anything that I have suggested that runs afoul of any physical law. You are the one who doesn't seem willing to accept the statements of physical laws and feels the need to place conditions...add or subtract as necessary in order to conform to your belief.



Yes you are trying to reinvent science. Many on this board have proven that time and again. Since you don't believe the correct form of the SB law, the SLoT, quantum radiation, and QM in general, then of course you remain in the dark and insult science.



SSDD said:


> You keep talking about all this observed, measured evidence but don't seem to be able to produce any of it, and what you do produce, you clearly don't understand what it is showing you.



The observed, measured evidence has been pointed out many times by many people here. But since you don't believe in accepted physics, you remain in the dark. Ironically you construct your own models which make no sense physically. You have a propensity to interpret precisely defined physics terms in your own way to suit your ends.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> What you made up is that it is not spontaneous because energy was supplied before it became spontaneous. That is made up. Phosphorescence, for example, is spontaneous after the source is removed. That is according to all scientist. Energy or work must be supplied first, and that is consistent with the first law of thermodynamics.



If the energy emitted was supplied, then it could never be spontaneous...again, by definition, spontaneous means with no outside assistance.



Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .then I pointed out your propensity to simply make shit up if you think it will further your argument...
> ...



Which was not true...and then I provided an actual example of your Ciff Claven propensity to simply make up whatever you think needs to be said in support of your position.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Nope it's not about me. It's about all scientists who believe the same thing I do.



Nope...its about you and what you are willing to believe....Since you can't provide any observed measured evidence to support your position.  If you could, then it would be about that evidence and the means and methods it was gathered..since there is none, this is all about what you believe,



Wuwei said:


> Yes you are trying to reinvent science. Many on this board have proven that time and again. Since you don't believe the correct form of the SB law, the SLoT, quantum radiation, and QM in general, then of course you remain in the dark and insult science.



I asked you to provide anything I have said that runs afoul of any physical law..I can't help but note that, as I expected, you have provided nothing.  And in case you missed the memo, QM is an evolving hypothesis in the process of becoming a theory..it is far far far from becoming a physical law.



Wuwei said:


> The observed, measured evidence has been pointed out many times by many people here. But since you don't believe in accepted physics, you remain in the dark. Ironically you construct your own models which make no sense physically. You have a propensity to interpret precisely defined physics terms in your own way to suit your ends.



You are a bald faced liar.  All that has been shown to me is evidence that you people don't have the slightest idea of what instruments are measuring, or how they work.  If there were actually observed, measured evidence, supporting the greenhouse hypothesis, and AGW, then it would be published in the peer reviewed literature.....no such evidence has ever been published because no such evidence exists.  

But do feel free to provide the literature if you believe it exists.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If the energy emitted was supplied, then it could never be spontaneous...again, by definition, spontaneous means with no outside assistance.


You are changing the science definition of spontaneous again. You do that sort of thing a lot.
When the lights are out phosphorescent materials glow, with no more outside assistance. That is the physics. If you don't accept that you don't accept physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> its about you and what you are willing to believe.


I believe the observed measured models of science are consistent with events of nature. Almost everyone does. You do not. So, It's not about me.



SSDD said:


> I asked you to provide anything I have said that runs afoul of any physical law.


I just did, but since you don't believe the science behind it, I can see why you are confused. 



SSDD said:


> You are a bald faced liar. All that has been shown to me is evidence that you people don't have the slightest idea of what instruments are measuring, or how they work. If there were actually observed, measured evidence, supporting the greenhouse hypothesis, and AGW, then it would be published in the peer reviewed literature.....no such evidence has ever been published because no such evidence exists.


Again, you don't understand science and how instrumentation has proven QM to parts per billion. You have to understand science before you can even start thinking about the GHE.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*means that once an OUTSIDE source adds energy to an object, spontaneity is no longer possible. *

If I add energy to an object, with my flashlight, the object can't spontaneously emit?

Please explain then, how it does emit. Or explain that it doesn't. 

Any everywhere he went, he was running......away.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If I add energy to an object, with my flashlight, the object can't spontaneously emit?


According to SSDD that would be true, but it goes deeper than that:

His "idea" is tantamount to saying *nothing on earth *is ever spontaneous, because for anything to spontaneously emit energy, that energy must come from some outside source somewhere in the past.

However radioactive decay is said by all physicists to be spontaneous.. He once said radioactivity is not spontaneous. A cold isotope emitting gamma rays to a warm object should be an obvious example of spontaneity. Gamma emission is also EM energy going from a cold to a warmer object Hey SSDD, what do you think about that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> Any lab that would give you a job beyond janitor is at risk of losing their licenses.



Lab?

Did you say "lab'?

What do the lab test show for the relationship between temperature and increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If I add energy to an object, with my flashlight, the object can't spontaneously emit?
> ...



That's not what he said


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are changing the science definition of spontaneous again. You do that sort of thing a lot.



I am afraid that you are the one who typically alters, adds to or subtracts from definitions in an effort to support your losing argument.  Here, from the Biology Online Dictionary...as the term wasn't listed in any online physics dictionary...guess physics accepts the standard definition of the word which is:

Proceeding from, or acting by, internal impulse, energy, or natural law, without external force; as, spontaneous motion; spontaneous growth.

Note that dictionaries invariably state that spontaneous is by definition without external stimulus.



Wuwei said:


> When the lights are out phosphorescent materials glow, with no more outside assistance. That is the physics. If you don't accept that you don't accept physics.



They are releasing energy they absorbed from external sources...Any outside assistance providing energy takes away the possibility of spontaneity.  That is like saying that if you put gas in your tank on thursday, but don't start the car till friday, your engine is running spontaneously.  You are a moron.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I believe the observed measured models of science are consistent with events of nature. Almost everyone does. You do not. So, It's not about me.



And I keep asking for observed, measured evidence that support those models and you keep not delivering...because, as I said, the models are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable.  There is no actual evidence that offers support.



SSDD said:


> I just did, but since you don't believe the science behind it, I can see why you are confused.



No you didn't...but do feel free to provide any instance.



SSDD said:


> Y
> Again, you don't understand science and how instrumentation has proven QM to parts per billion. You have to understand science before you can even start thinking about the GHE.



I am laughing in your face again....considering that you don't even know how such basic instruments as an infrared thermometer, a spectrometer, or a pyrogeometer works, the idea that you even begin to understand exactly what, or how instruments involved in QM research operate, or what they are measuring is laughable.  If you don't understand the basics, you can't even begin to understand the more complex.  You read somewhere about parts per billion and apparently think that all of QM is proven science.  Not even close...and again...QM isn't even close to becoming physical law and as I said, my position doesn't run afoul of any physical law.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Typical of his lot.  They are unable to argue against the actual arguments that we skeptics  put forward, so they invent arguments to rail against and attribute said arguments to rail against.

In this case, every dictionary, I can find says that spontaneous means happening without outside forces...He apparently believes that if a substance absorbs energy from an outside source, then emits that energy at a later time that the emission of energy is spontaneous...never mind the fact that once the absorbed energy is used up, the emission stops, or the emission never begins without first absorbing energy...

Guess he believes that if you gas up your car on thursday, but don't start it till friday, it is running spontaneously....ignore the fact that when the gas is gone, the engine stops, and it would never have even started without the gas in the first place.

They just make it up as they go in an attempt to lend creedence to their faith...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If I add energy to an object, with my flashlight, the object can't spontaneously emit?
> ...



You do realize...or maybe you don't..that gamma rays have a frequency, or slightly above that of hard X rays.  What is the highest frequency in the infrared range which you, in your very basic understanding, might perceive as heat?  Maybe you never noted that when I ask for examples of energy moving from cool to warm, I ask for discrete frequencies...it is all about frequencies...your understanding is so basic that I suppose to you,  gamma radiation some how "cooler" than the radiation from a match. 

Here is a pretty easy to read chart...one would expect that energy from a gamma source could freely move from the source to anything emitting at a frequency to the left of gamma radiation. By the way...gamma radiation can be found on the far right side of the graph.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



All they have to do is set up a lab experiment controlling for the difference between a 280 vs 400 PPM CO2 environment.  Show us in a lab how a very dangerous instantaneous increase in CO2 has immediate effects on temperature. What we get instead are the squid ink defense of  "Can you create a black hole in a lab?" "We need to use a lab the size of the solar system".  They let out a veil of obscurity and hope to hide behind it.

It's political science, not real science


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Gareff has managed to measure minute temperature gradients in static columns of air, demonstrating that pressure has an effect on temperature...you would think that if CO2 had even a fraction of the effect they claim it would be measurable and could be empirically quantified and published in a peer reviewed journal.

No less than Maxwell, Carnot, and Clausius said that the greenhouse effect was fantasy...I would say those 3 have far more knowledge of the physics of energy exchange than Arrhenius..and there still isn't the first piece of empirical evidence to support the existence of a radiative greenhouse effect after 120+ years.

Guess you really cant expect more than squid ink...what else do they have?


----------



## Crick (Nov 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> you would think that if CO2 had even a fraction of the effect they claim it would be measurable and could be empirically quantified and published in a peer reviewed journal



Global warming over a span of more than a century has just exceeded one degree of warming.  A pressure change from a sea level altitude difference of 235 feet will produce the same effect.  That he should think the effects even roughly equivalent is just another demonstration that SSDD has the physics knowledge of an infant with a learning disability.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You do realize...or maybe you don't..that gamma rays have a frequency, or slightly above that of hard X rays. What is the highest frequency in the infrared range which you, in your very basic understanding, might perceive as heat? Maybe you never noted that when I ask for examples of energy moving from cool to warm, I ask for discrete frequencies...it is all about frequencies...your understanding is so basic that I suppose to you, gamma radiation some how "cooler" than the radiation from a match.
> 
> Here is a pretty easy to read chart...one would expect that energy from a gamma source could freely move from the source to anything emitting at a frequency to the left of gamma radiation. By the way...gamma radiation can be found on the far right side of the graph.



These are observed facts that every physicist knows:
Gamma decay is spontaneous.
Gamma rays are electromagnetic.
Gamma rays are energetic particles.
Gamma rays from a single isotope emit discrete frequency(s).
Gamma rays from a room temperature source can strike a warmer body.

Gamma decay is an example that energy will flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object as long as the following clarification is understood and followed:

_It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object._​
Second Law of Thermodynamics


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ...every dictionary, I can find says that spontaneous means happening without outside forces.



That may be the definition of spontaneous in some scenarios, but in physics the operative phrase is "*spontaneous emission*".

_*Spontaneous emission* is the process in which a quantum mechanical system such as an atom, molecule or subatomic particle transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon._​
_Luminescence is *spontaneous emission* of light by a substance not resulting from heat; it is thus a form of *cold-body radiation*. ... This distinguishes luminescence from incandescence, which is light emitted by a substance as a result of heating._​
The phrase "spontaneous emission" also covers gamma emission since the definition includes subatomic particle transitions.

If you want to talk about physical systems you must use physics definitions, but since you have not had any formal physics training you must be very careful about the meanings of words and phrases you choose to use, or you will lead yourself to false conclusions.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> never mind the fact that once the absorbed energy is used up, the emission stops


It is well known that spontaneous emission decays exponentially with time,


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you would think that if CO2 had even a fraction of the effect they claim it would be measurable and could be empirically quantified and published in a peer reviewed journal
> ...



Based  on which flawed, massaged, manipulated data base?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize...or maybe you don't..that gamma rays have a frequency, or slightly above that of hard X rays. What is the highest frequency in the infrared range which you, in your very basic understanding, might perceive as heat? Maybe you never noted that when I ask for examples of energy moving from cool to warm, I ask for discrete frequencies...it is all about frequencies...your understanding is so basic that I suppose to you, gamma radiation some how "cooler" than the radiation from a match.
> ...



Great......lets ignore the frequency of all energy and apply the second law of thermodynamics only to infrared...you really are an idiot.

Write your paper explaining how many ways you have found around the second law of thermodynamics...let me know when it is published.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Great......lets ignore the frequency of all energy and apply the second law of thermodynamics only to infrared...you really are an idiot.



The second law of thermodynamics applies to all possible forms energy. In radiation exchange it applies to all frequencies. What is your point?



SSDD said:


> Write your paper explaining how many ways you have found around the second law of thermodynamics...let me know when it is published.



That has no point. First, what you think are ways to get around the SLoT are nothing but counterexamples to your misunderstanding of the SLoT. 

Second, the counterexamples are well known and already in the literature. 
These are the published counterexamples you have been given on this board so far that radiation can occur to warmer bodies and still obey the second law of thermodynamics.

Sun's corona. 
Many forms of Luminosity.
Non-incandescent energy flow. (cold body radiation)
Thermal radiation exchange between two bodies.
Cosmic microwave background.

All these are examples of energy flow from a source to warmer bodies. There are many more. None of these violate the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> [
> 
> All these are examples of energy flow from a source to warmer bodies. There are many more. None of these violate the second law of thermodynamics.



Let me guess....you are completely unaware that warm and cold are terms that refer entirely to temperature...as in infrared....and have no idea, that in terms of energy transfer, warm and cold are nothing more than handy terms we use to discuss the amount of, and frequency of energy that any particular thing emits...

In terms of amount of energy being emitted, and the frequency at which it is being emitted, your "cold" bit of matter emitting gamma radiation is hotter than an acetylene torch by a long shot.  No matter how you twist and turn, no matter how much mental gymnastics and gyrations you engage in, and no matter what foul cesspool you are willing to drag your intellect through, you are not going to find energy moving spontaneously from a less ordered to a more ordered state....ever....anywhere.

And as has already been discussed, there is work being performed to move energy to the sun's corona.. the most recent hypothesis is alfven waves.  It isn't a case of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...

And no form of luminosity, or cold body radiation is spontaneous as it is not self starting or self perpetuating.

And there is no energy exchange between bodies emitting at different frequencies (I suppose I must say frequencies explicitly since you seem to think that hot and cold refer to thermometer readings only]....there is only energy moving from the higher frequency emitter to the lower frequency emitter...

You are, quite simply wrong on all accounts and you will never find an example of energy moving spontaneously from a low frequency to a higher frequency.

I can't believe that after all this, it comes down to you believing that I was merely talking about the temperature on a thermometer...how 5th grade can you get?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> warm and cold are nothing more than handy terms we use to discuss the amount of, and frequency of energy that any particular thing emits.


That's called black body radiation.



SSDD said:


> "cold" bit of matter emitting gamma radiation is hotter than an acetylene torch by a long shot.


Temperature is not defined for a single particle.



SSDD said:


> you are not going to find energy moving spontaneously from a less ordered to a more ordered state.


That is true for net energy. However there is nothing physically stopping radiation from being unequally exchanged by substances at different temperatures. Otherwise it would violate quantum mechanics.



SSDD said:


> And as has already been discussed, there is work being performed to move energy to the sun's corona.. the most recent hypothesis is alfven waves. It isn't a case of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...



It seems you are assuming radiation from a colder body can move to a hotter body only if the hotter body achieved its heat through work. Is that what you mean?



SSDD said:


> And no form of luminosity, or cold body radiation is spontaneous as it is not self starting or self perpetuating.


Not correct. Read up on "spontaneous emission" and "Gibbs free energy".



SSDD said:


> And there is no energy exchange between bodies emitting at different frequencies (I suppose I must say frequencies explicitly since you seem to think that hot and cold refer to thermometer readings only]....there is only energy moving from the higher frequency emitter to the lower frequency emitter...


That whole paragraph is muddied. If you are referring to black body radiation, just say it. If so, then by "different frequencies" you mean different black body spectra. If you don't mean BB radiation then clarify your remarks.



SSDD said:


> You are, quite simply wrong on all accounts and you will never find an example of energy moving spontaneously from a low frequency to a higher frequency.


That is also muddied. Talking about "a low frequency" means one particular frequency. Taken quite literally you are saying a glowing red LED can't send energy to a glowing blue LED. That is certainly not BB radiation. You have to clarify that.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That is true for net energy.



There is no net energy exchange between objects radiating at different frequencies...but do feel free to provide an observed, measured example of it happening if you want to make a point.



Wuwei said:


> However there is nothing physically stopping radiation from being unequally exchanged by substances at different temperatures. Otherwise it would violate quantum mechanics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> There is no net energy exchange between objects radiating at different frequencies...but do feel free to provide an observed, measured example of it happening if you want to make a point.


Your thoughts are still muddied. If you are referring to black body radiation, just say it. You are still implying that a glowing red LED can't send energy to a glowing blue LED. 

You were given lots of observed measured evidence that proves you liberally make up crap. When you twist definitions, and purposefully make up your own inconsistent laws of physics, you are simply a troll, and a very obvious troll at that.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Ho Hum...still no observed measured evidence to support your claims...should I bother to even come back...will it all be just more of the same...you having a temper tantrum because I won't believe in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

Ho hum, Same Shit is still the only person on Earth who thinks there is no empirical evidence supporting AGW.  And given that he's an idiot and a liar, I am not terribly concerned.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> Ho hum, Same Shit is still the only person on Earth who thinks there is no empirical evidence supporting AGW.  And given that he's an idiot and a liar, I am not terribly concerned.




I keep asking...and you keep not delivering...then lying about it..

Keep it up though...it is entertaining to watch you lash out in your frustration.


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> Ho hum, Same Shit is still the only person on Earth who thinks there is no empirical evidence supporting AGW.  And given that he's an idiot and a liar, I am not terribly concerned.



And neither should anyone else out there.  There is absolutely NO reason to pay the slightest attention to what SSDD has to say.  His claims regarding heat transfer, the second law of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and a dozen other topics indicate very clearly that he has no science education whatsoever.  His concepts are the product of pure and unadulterated ignorance.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ho hum, Same Shit is still the only person on Earth who thinks there is no empirical evidence supporting AGW.  And given that he's an idiot and a liar, I am not terribly concerned.
> ...



My but you are desperate aren't you skidmark...carrying that sandwich sign around...proclaiming that the end is near.  I asked you to produce the evidence that you claimed existed...you couldn't do it..you are a liar, and easily fooled and sound like a complete idiot trying to be a public service announcement warning people not to listen to the fact that I have asked for straight forward evidence in support of claims made by climate science that you can't produce.

Do you think that maybe people don't notice you thrashing about trying to save face while I laugh at you because I knew all along that you couldn't produce what you claimed existed?

By the way...your latest mewling plea is just another logical fallacy.  Fallacy seems to be all you have.  Do keep it up though...smells like......Victory!!!


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> As I and others have stated dozens and dozens of times, anyone wishing to see and review mountains of the evidence that SSDD claims does not exist should visit www.ipcc.ch and read Working Group I's portion of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Review: "The Physical Science Basis".
> 
> https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf


Yeah...you posted a big chunk of it HERE...and when I asked you to point out any where within it a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked for you to point out a single piece of observed measured evidence which established a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, YOU COULDN'T DO IT....and when I asked you to point out a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming resulting from human activities was measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses, YOU COULDN'T DO IT.

You are being pwned skidmark...the more you talk, the more opportunity I have to point out that you couldn't produce even a shred of the evidence you claimed existed..,I can do it all day...till I have to leave to play a gig this afternoon anyway...


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

And even more lies.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> And even more lies.



Point out the evidence I asked for in the steaming pile of excrement you wasted bandwidth providing...or hell, go look somewhere else.  I am asking for evidence and you aren't providing it...no one is providing it and it certainly isn't out there in the literature...where, exactly is the evidence I am asking for.

Do you believe that asking for a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability is to much to ask for?

Do you think it is unreasonable to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

Do you think it is outrageous to ask for a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by man's activities has been measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?  

Are those things really to much to ask from a hypothesis regarding entities as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the climate?


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2018)

Asked and answered


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ho hum, Same Shit is still the only person on Earth who thinks there is no empirical evidence supporting AGW.  And given that he's an idiot and a liar, I am not terribly concerned.
> ...



But he posts such good sources....which end up disproving his claims


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> Asked and answered




F'ing liar...I have been asking and you have not been delivering...you post great steaming piles of garbage and are rightly to embarrassed to point out which parts of it are adequate to fool you...you aren't fooling anyone skidmark...no one at all.  You lost great face today...learn something from it.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Ho Hum...still no observed measured evidence to support your claims...should I bother to even come back...will it all be just more of the same...you having a temper tantrum because I won't believe in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?


So you are running away from your explanation of why you think radioactivity is not spontaneous emission?  That's OK.  I understand. It is an example of cold radiation -- a type of radiation that can hit bodies of any temperature. Phosphorescence is another example. These destroy your misunderstandings of radiation thermodynamics.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> So you are running away from your explanation of why you think radioactivity is not spontaneous emission? {;/quote]
> 
> When did I say that radioactive decay was not spontaneous?  More of your made up bullshit to argue against.  I pointed out that terms like hot and cold are convenient means to describe relative frequencies of energy objects emit.  In the infrared, hot and cold are obvious..a burning match is hot, and ice cube is cold.
> 
> ...



Like I said...your notions of hot and cold as the apply to the frequency of energy being emitted are juvenile at best.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > So you are running away from your explanation of why you think radioactivity is not spontaneous emission? {;/quote]
> ...



Geez how do you think up that crap. *Temperature cannot be defined by a single particle.* A gamma ray does not have a temperature.

You actually said that refined radium does not decay spontaneously because work went into refining it. I then asked why refining ore could change the spontaneity. You ran away at that point. 

Phosphorescence is also an example of spontaneous emission.

Note: all examples of spontaneous emission or "cold-body radiation" are *not heat*.

_Luminescence is *spontaneous emission* of light by a substance not resulting from heat; it is thus a form of *cold-body radiation*. ... This distinguishes luminescence from incandescence, which is light emitted by a substance as a result of heating._​
You are trying confusing luminescence with incandescence.

With cold-body radiation there are many examples of energy moving from a cold source to a warmer substance.

.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Geez how do you think up that crap. *Temperature cannot be defined by a single particle.* A gamma ray does not have a temperature.




How unsurprising is this.....we are barely past the basics and already over your head.  Did I not say, and I quote, "
Once you go past the infrared either higher or lower, hot and cold aren't quite so obvious if you think hot and cold are merely matters of temperature."

I then went on to try and explain that it really is all a matter of frequency...that is why, whenever I asked you to provide measurements of energy, I asked for measurements of discrete frequencies.  It is clear now that you had no idea why I was asking in those terms.  This is all just way past you....so it goes with posers.




Wuwei said:


> You actually said that refined radium does not decay spontaneously because work went into refining it. I then asked why refining ore could change the spontaneity. You ran away at that point.



I believe we were talking about visible light at the time and I was pointing out what was involved in making the paint you find on your watch...which, by the way, absorbs light then emits it...external process......in your quest to find energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...again...failure...If you are talking just radiation, then the frequency of its radiation is far above anything in the infrared...

Sorry guy..more evidence that you simply make up arguments and then rail against them.



Wuwei said:


> Phosphorescence is also an example of spontaneous emission.



Sorry but it isn't...it requires an external source of energy which is then re emitted...been through all that before and you aren't going to be any less wrong this time


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> How unsurprising is this.....we are barely past the basics and already over your head. Did I not say, and I quote, "
> Once you go past the infrared either higher or lower, hot and cold aren't quite so obvious if you think hot and cold are merely matters of temperature."


Nonsense, the sun is very hot and much of it's energy is in the visible wavelengths and on into the ultraviolet. 

You said, "_The frequency of gamma radiation makes it "hotter" than anything on the infrared scale_." The fact is the frequency of the gamma ray in nuclear decay has nothing to do with BB radiation frequencies. Absolutely nothing. You are trying to reinvent physics again and are way over your head in BS.



SSDD said:


> I then went on to try and explain that it really is all a matter of frequency...that is why, whenever I asked you to provide measurements of energy, I asked for measurements of discrete frequencies. It is clear now that you had no idea why I was asking in those terms. This is all just way past you....so it goes with posers.



"...it really is all a matter of frequency..." What do you mean by "it". The only thing that makes sense is that "it" refers to black body radiation. Again gamma decay isn't "it".



SSDD said:


> I believe we were talking about visible light at the time and I was pointing out what was involved in making the paint you find on your watch...which, by the way, absorbs light then emits it...external process......in your quest to find energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...again...failure...If you are talking just radiation, then the frequency of its radiation is far above anything in the infrared...
> 
> Sorry guy..more evidence that you simply make up arguments and then rail against them.



Nope. You said.


SSDD said:


> Radium is manufactured commercially by the electrolysis of their molten salts...what exactly do you think is spontaneous about that?


We were not talking about a watch at that point. Just radioactive decay. Again you were ignoring physics definition of just what spontaneous really means.



SSDD said:


> Sorry but it isn't...it requires an external source of energy which is then re emitted...been through all that before and you aren't going to be any less wrong this time


Of course it initially requires an external source. But after the source is removed, phosphorescence is still spontaneous emission which is cold-body radiation. Here are the definitions again.

_Luminescence is *spontaneous emission* of light by a substance not resulting from heat; it is thus a form of *cold-body radiation*. ... This distinguishes luminescence from incandescence, which is light emitted by a substance as a result of heating._

*Spontaneous emission* is the process in which a quantum mechanical system such as an atom, molecule or subatomic particle transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state and emits a quantum in the form of a photon.

Those definitions are not concerned with how the emitter initially gets it's energy. You are really having a hard time understanding spontaneous emission, and so you try to reinvent the physics again. It's not working.


 .


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Here is the deal...I have grown very bored with going over the same discussion over and over and over...it always ends with you not being able to produce any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously and simultaneously between two objects.  If you feel the need to do this again...start with the observed, MEASURED example of said energy movement and we can proceed from there.  I won't rehash the same thing over and over with you any further.

I get it...you believe in models...you believe in them to the extent that you will ignore observed measured reality in favor of them.  I don't.  Since you can't produce any observed, measured examples to demonstrate what you believe, it remains in the realm of belief.  When you can bring them out into reality with observed MEASURED examples, let me know.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Here is the deal...I have grown very bored with going over the same discussion over and over and over...it always ends with you not being able to produce any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously and simultaneously between two objects.  If you feel the need to do this again...start with the observed, MEASURED example of said energy movement and we can proceed from there.  I won't rehash the same thing over and over with you any further.
> 
> I get it...you believe in models...you believe in them to the extent that you will ignore observed measured reality in favor of them.  I don't.  Since you can't produce any observed, measured examples to demonstrate what you believe, it remains in the realm of belief.  When you can bring them out into reality with observed MEASURED examples, let me know.


Since you cross-posted this in other threads, I will cross-post my reply.

You are bored? You incorrectly think the second law of thermodynamics says that there is no type of energy that can spontaneously move from a colder to a warmer body. Many experiments show you are totally wrong. No scientist agrees with you.

Here is the bottom line. We all agree that radiation can mediate energy flow. Aim a detector at the hot object, you see it is radiating energy. Aim the detector at the cold object, you see it radiates less energy. No observed measured experiment has shown they cannot radiate simultaneously.

Observed, measured principles of physics say they do. Many here have given you measured observed examples that show you are wrong – the CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. You counter those examples with made up non-“science” that is totally inconsistent with all other science which you openly and vehemently disparage. None of your “science” can be found in the literature and you are aware of that. You are alone in your belief. So you are bored? I think you are intellectually exhausted.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Still nothing but your insistence that I believe in the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models with you...Sorry, but I won't...


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still nothing but your insistence that I believe in the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models with you...Sorry, but I won't...


You are lying. The CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona, etc. are all measured, observed, and tested. *Not mathematical models*. That's all you have left is lying.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2018)

Your knowledge base is shallow, and sketchy to say the least...none of those are examples of energy moving spontaneously from a cool (lower energy) object to a warm ( higher energy) object...you are easily fooled and jump at every shiny object that passes your way....if you were a bass, you would be residing on someone's wall.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Your knowledge base is shallow, and sketchy to say the least...none of those are examples of energy moving spontaneously from a cool (lower energy) object to a warm ( higher energy) object...you are easily fooled and jump at every shiny object that passes your way....if you were a bass, you would be residing on someone's wall.



Nope, you are lying. The CMB, luminescence, radioactivity, the corona are measured observed evidence. You know that is accepted verified science and you are lying about it. Your ad hominem to all scientists just doesn't work anymore.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 6, 2018)

You are so easily fooled that talking to you is nothing more than a tedious series of repetitive episodes explain how what you think you are seeing.....isn't. If I believed that anyone else would derive any benefit from seeing all your foolishness debunked, I might continue with it, but frankly, I don't think anyone else around here is obsessed with finding a way around the second law of thermodynamics in some misguided attempt to prove their crazy science knows all religion. So no...I am not going around on your crazy merry go round any more...if you feel the need to repeat the same thing over an over again, simply re read this gibberish the first 3 times you posted it.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 6, 2018)

I accept your concession. My "foolishness" is science and physics. Your's is made up pseudoscience. Science wins. Your merry go round has just derailed.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 7, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I accept your concession. My "foolishness" is science and physics. Your's is made up pseudoscience. Science wins. Your merry go round has just derailed.




There you go...shake those pom poms...maybe toddler and crick will join you in your fantasy victory...they are big on fantasy victories also...you have so much in common...when the pep rally is over, you can give each other big wet sloppy kisses.


----------



## IanC (Nov 7, 2018)

SSDD is not a skeptic. 

Delusional, yes. Paranoid, yes. Schizophrenic? Maybe. His conspiracy ideation is truly epic.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 8, 2018)

It is hard to say if he is just a simple liar.
A liar knows the truth but purposefully says a falsehood. 

SSDD goes further and says anything that comes to his head without having any idea whether it's true or false. If it sounds good to him, it then becomes his truth. That is quite pathological.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD is not a skeptic.
> 
> Delusional, yes. Paranoid, yes. Schizophrenic? Maybe. His conspiracy ideation is truly epic.



Still waiting on that observed, measured evidence to support your belief...still can't provide it can you?  You know, if someone were able to thwart me at every turn, with so little effort, I would be saying that they were some sort of evil genius...I certainly wouldn't be claiming that a delusion paranoid was handing me my ass on a regular basis.  You make claims...I ask for evidence...you fail to provide evidence...it is the same thing over and over and over...Do you think it is going to change somehow?  What is the definition of insanity?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> It is hard to say if he is just a simple liar.
> A liar knows the truth but purposefully says a falsehood.
> 
> SSDD goes further and says anything that comes to his head without having any idea whether it's true or false. If it sounds good to him, it then becomes his truth. That is quite pathological.



Keep telling yourself that if it helps you think of something other than your abject failure to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims...


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Keep telling yourself that if it helps you think of something other than your abject failure to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims...


Lots of people already did provide the observed measured evidence. You know that.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 9, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Keep telling yourself that if it helps you think of something other than your abject failure to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims...
> ...



Same old lie over and over...you think at some point I will forget that you actually never did prod any observed measured evidence to challenge the 3 statements I made?  Not going to happen..

Let me reiterate:

*1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.
*
Now, are you claiming that "lots" of people already provided observed, measured evidence which challenges the 3 claims above, or are you just saying that people have provided observed, measured evidence which doesn't necessarily challenge those three claims, but is good enough to convince anyone who is politically and mentally predisposed to believe a hypothesis that lacks observed, measured evidence to support it.

Maybe you are claiming that the evidence got lost in the shuffle...I have read all the posts and haven't seen it, but if "lots" of people have posted it, then it should take little effort to bring it here and slap me down with it.  Lets see it.

I predict that it won't be forthcoming, because it has never been posted, because it doesn't exist.  I do believe that enough bullshit has been provided that is apparently sufficient to fool someone like you..and I believe that you honestly don't have any idea what actual observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements I made might look like...but no, none has been posted, and you won't be bringing any here to "put me in my place"...

What I predict you will do is put up another mewling, impotent post claiming that it has been posted but you aren't inclined to post it here, or some feeble logical fallacy intended to distract from the fact that you aren't slapping me down with the evidence I said doesn't exist.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Let me reiterate:
> 
> *1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> ...


You are cross posting this from another thread. Let's keep it in the "No Evidence" thread.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



* There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.*

There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports your one way only flow of photons hypothesis over two way flow.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Of course there is....the fact that you can't measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a source that is cooler than the instrument being used is exactly that sort of evidence...heat the radiator to any temperature warmer than the instrument and you start measuring discrete wavelengths of energy.  

How do you interpret that?  What do you think it means?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*the fact that you can't measure discrete wavelengths of energy moving from a source that is cooler than the instrument being used is exactly that sort of evidence*

We've seen what happens when You post supposed evidence.
I'll wait for you to post a real source that says, "photons can never move from a cooler source to an instrument".

​*How do you interpret that? *​
I interpret that to mean that you believe emitters are omniscient.

Perhaps if you posted a real source that explained why the atmosphere at -10C can't (won't?) emit toward an instrument on the ground at 15C, but the instant it is cooled to -10.0000001C, suddenly every molecule is allowed to emit toward it.
​* What do you think it means?*​
Your failure to post a real source backing your claim means that you are alone in your belief.

​


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2018)

Prove me wrong...post a measurement of a discrete wavelength measured by an instrument warmer than the radiation source....

We both know that won't be happening....but that isn't much of a surprise to either of us...is it.  Maybe you can post a drawing derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model as empirical evidence...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 10, 2018)

Prove yourself correct....post a source that says wavelengths are prohibited from hitting warmer targets.

We both know you can't.

Maybe you can post a drawing from The Handbook of Modern Sensors?
One that helps your claims, instead of refuting them?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Prove yourself correct....post a source that says wavelengths are prohibited from hitting warmer targets.
> 
> We both know you can't.
> 
> ...




The fact that none exist prove me right...what other way is there to prove a negative?

You think that no scientist ever thought of pointing an uncooled instrument at open sky?  If they measured something, don't you think it might support the whole case for back radiation? You wouldn't be able to escape it...anywhere...the spectrum would be printed on toilet paper.

Like i said, no evidence will be forthcoming from you..because none exist...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Let me reiterate:
> ...



Seriously...after the number of posts in which you have done the same thing...stupid and a hypocrite.

Aside from that, the statements are just as pertinent on this thread as on the other thread...in fact, they are pertinent on any thread where anyone is attempting to defend either the greenhouse hypothesis, or its bastard stepchild, AGW.  They raise questions to the validity of the whole field of climate science...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Prove yourself correct....post a source that says wavelengths are prohibited from hitting warmer targets.
> ...



*The fact that none exist prove me right.*

I agree, no sources exist that back up your claim.
On one side, we have Einstein and Planck and many, many others, who understood that objects at equilibrium absorb and emit equal amounts of energy, on the other side we have you. Alone. By yourself. With no proof. No evidence.

Just your omniscient matter that knows the temperature of cooler matter, magically, with no way of collecting that info, because, according to you, that cooler matter cannot radiate toward the warmer matter.

I can't think of any way to detect temperature without collecting emitted photons. 
I'll bet you can't either.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


My cross posts only follow your cross posts. I'm trying to stop it, but you are not. Cross posting is frowned upon in the USMB.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I agree, no sources exist that back up your claim.


That's right; no scientist in their right mind would use a noisy uncooled instrument in an experiment where the highest accuracy was desired. SSDD knows that. Yet he still pretends that smart photons exist. That's really quite trollish.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, no sources exist that back up your claim.
> ...



The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Any other sources to confirm your claim, "lack of incoming radiation..."?

Or are you one of the scientists who discovered ulcers were caused by bacteria? LOL!


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation.


Nope. The radiation was measured. The problem is your fairy dust reinvention of physics.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The problem isn't noise...it is lack of incoming radiation.
> ...




Not with an instrument that was at ambient temperature...cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than the instrument and of course you will have incoming radiation...sorry you don't seem to be able to grasp the ramifications of this observation.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Not with an instrument that was at ambient temperature...cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than the instrument and of course you will have incoming radiation...sorry you don't seem to be able to grasp the ramifications of this observation.


You don't grasp that cooling is always for noise reduction and is not related to the temperature it is measuring.


----------



## IanC (Nov 13, 2018)

Stefan (of SB fame), devised a very clever experiment. He took a hollow cannonball  and heated it up in an oven. The enclosed cavity is filled with radiation at equilibrium to the cannonball's inner temperature. A small aperture had been drilled to allow measurements of the radiation but the very very small loss of energy  did not affect the temperature. 

His data for temperature readings from cool to hot suggested that the relationship was radiation equals temperature to the fourth power times a constant (temperature  in Kelvins).

According to SSDD, there is no radiation in the cavity until the aperture is opened, and even then only radiation that will leave via the aperture is permitted to come into existence. 

According to physicists the radiation is always there, waiting to get out rather than waiting for permission to spring into life.

All objects constantly  radiating according to their temperature and emissivity, or SSDDs all knowing entity deciding which bit of radiation is permissible based on the average kinetic speed of the environment that contains the bit of matter that will ultimately absorb the photon.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2018)

The only objects that constantly radiate according to their temperature and emissivity are perfect black bodies alone in a vacuum..all others radiate according to the difference between their own temperature and the temperature of their surroundings.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not with an instrument that was at ambient temperature...cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than the instrument and of course you will have incoming radiation...sorry you don't seem to be able to grasp the ramifications of this observation.
> ...


Keep telling yourself that...keep being fooled by instrumentation


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


We have been through this ad nauseam. We all get it. You don't believe science of the past 100 years or so. This makes you unqualified to say anything that makes sense in science or technology that involves basic physics.


----------



## cnm (Nov 17, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> This makes you [SSDD] unqualified to say anything that makes sense in science or technology that involves basic physics.


But never uncertain...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Antarctic temperatures recently plunged close to the theoretically coldest achievable on Earth!

its called a lack of incoming energy...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The Antarctic is cold because back-radiation doesn't exist?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 18, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



More of your fantasy.  I am on board with much of the science of the past 100 years...Pretty much all of it that has observable, measurable results to back it up..  if it depends entirely on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...not so much.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 18, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


DID I SAY THAT?  

Nope!  

Even NASA understands that radiation from a colder object cannot slow the cooling from a warmer one..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*DID I SAY THAT? *

You haven't said anything. LOL!

Are you now agreeing with SSDD's dimmer switch theory?
Or do you have your own?

You never answered my previous question. Why so scared, bro?

The warmer body loses heat at the same rate with a -80F object radiating toward it as it would if it were just radiating into the vacuum of space at -450F?

*Even NASA understands that radiation from a colder object cannot slow the cooling from a warmer one..*

Cooling rates are unchanged by other, nearby objects? That's your claim?

A NASA source saying the same would be nice.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> More of your fantasy. I am on board with much of the science of the past 100 years...Pretty much all of it that has observable, measurable results to back it up.. if it depends entirely on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...not so much.


Are you saying quantum mechanics is no longer fairy dust? Do you believe the "observables" of quantum mechanics?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > More of your fantasy. I am on board with much of the science of the past 100 years...Pretty much all of it that has observable, measurable results to back it up.. if it depends entirely on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...not so much.
> ...



There are some observations...whetger our explanations for those observations are correct remain to be seen.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Meanwhile the mathematics of quantum mechanics remains indisputable in the realm of natural events on earth. Any future changes in QM will always predict the things that you will always deny. Look up this:
Correspondence principle | physics


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Sorry guy,,thee is a reason you can't come up with any actual empirical evidence to support your claims.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Until thermal equilibrium is met with the near by object the rate of cooling of the warmer one does not slow..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Until thermal equilibrium is met with the near by object the rate of cooling of the warmer one does not slow.. *

No. The warmer object emits proportional to the 4th power of its temperature.
So does the cooler object. By emitting toward the warmer object, the cooler objects slows
the cooling rate of the warmer object, compared to the rate the warmer object would cool, 
if it were emitting into the vacuum of space at -450F.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy,,thee is a reason you can't come up with any actual empirical evidence to support your claims.


I did support the claims of science (they are not just my claims). It's simply that you don't believe modern physics. We went through that ad infinitum.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 24, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Please demonstrate this by empirical experiment.  

The experiments I have done personally show no such correlation.  I know what the QM theroy says, but it does not match what is observed empirically..

There are a  lot of assumptions that don't pass muster..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Please demonstrate this by empirical experiment.  *

You need me to show you an experiment to prove Stefan-Boltzmann?
I thought you were a physicist...…..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



In his world an assumption is as good as a home run so long as you can come up with a model that supports the assumption...no testing necessary.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Dimmer switch!!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Your explanation, not mine.  I only said what we could observe and measure, and what those observations and measurements indicated...the ridiculous explanations are all you guys...i don't feel like i need an explanation for every observable, measurable phenomenon...we will get them when technology has advanced sufficiently...i don't feel like i need to believe the stories we tell ourselves in the meantime.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Your explanation, not mine.*

You didn't claim that matter dials down emissions when cooler matter is nearby?
That objects at equilibrium don't dial down emissions to zero?

* I only said what we could observe and measure, *

You ever post any measurements or observations that back up your claims, and refute the claims of Bohr, Einstein, et al?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Your explanation, not mine.*
> 
> You didn't claim that matter dials down emissions when cooler matter is nearby?



I said what the SB equation states.  If you have a problem with what it says, take it up with S-B in the next life.
That objects at equilibrium don't dial down emissions to zero?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You ever post any measurements or observations that back up your claims, and refute the claims of Bohr, Einstein, et al?



Every observation and measurement backs up my position...one way gross energy movement....measurements of spontaneous two way energy transfer between objects is suspiciously absent.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Your explanation, not mine.*
> ...



*I said what the SB equation states.*

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

*That objects at equilibrium don't dial down emissions to zero?*

Any observations or measurements to back up your claim?

*Every observation and measurement backs up my position...one way gross energy movement...*

Post a few. Why not a few that say, "Einstein was wrong, objects at equilibrium don't emit and absorb at the same rate"?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.



So how about you describe in plain english, the physical process this equation describes.







I sense a dodge approaching.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.
> ...



This describes net radiated power.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Like i said...dodge.  Whats the matter?  Can/t read an equation, or can't bring yourself to say what that equation actually says.?

Here, if you can't read one, let mr help you get started...

power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?...can you finish it from there or is that still to difficult for you?


----------



## IanC (Nov 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You are an idiot. 

The rate of radiation depends on the temperature of the object. 

The rate of cooling depends not only on the radiation emitted but also the radiation absorbed by the object from the environment. 

A roast taken out of the oven at 75C will cool on the counter, but cool faster in the fridge, and faster still in the freezer. The energy being radiated away by the roast is identical for any specific temperature,  but the net exchange between the object and environment differs according to the temperature difference between the two.

Radiation is always proportional to the actual temperature.  The change in temperature  is proportional to the difference  in temperature/radiation between the two.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Like i said...dodge*

Straightforward answer to your question. 

LMGTFY


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What a putz....you can't finish that simple equation can you?  Don't know which would be worse...not being able to finish it or not being willing because to state what it says would challenge your beliefs...

Lets try it again...dodge again and prove that i have won my point...






power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Net power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boltzmann constant times the area of the object times what? 

Fixed your question for you.









Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Hyperphysics agrees that it means net.
You must have dozens of sources that agree with you and disagree with Hyperphysics, Einstein, et al.

Right?

You never post any sources that agree with you...….weird.


----------



## Flash (Nov 26, 2018)

Looks like this solar minimum that is coming is going to be a doozy.

_* “Oh, my sweet summer child," Old Nan said quietly, "what do you know of fear? 
Fear is for the winter, my little lord, when the snows fall a hundred feet 
deep and the ice wind comes howling out of the north. Fear is for the long 
night, when the sun hides its face for years at a time, and little children 
are born and live and die all in darkness while the direwolves grow gaunt and 
hungry, and the white walkers move through the woods” *

_

Professor Valentina Zharkova explains and confirms why a “Super” Grand Solar Minimum is upon us


*Professor Valentina Zharkova explains and confirms why a “Super” Grand Solar Minimum is upon us*


Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018.

The last time we had a little ice age only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase. This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.

Even if the IPCC’s worst case scenarios are seen, that’s only a 1.5 watts per square meter increase. Zharkova’s analysis shows a 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI to the planet. 

tl;dr: ice age, crop failures, starvation,


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 26, 2018)

Flash said:


> Looks like this solar minimum that is coming is going to be a doozy.
> 
> _* “Oh, my sweet summer child," Old Nan said quietly, "what do you know of fear?
> Fear is for the winter, my little lord, when the snows fall a hundred feet
> ...



I might have to leave my SUV running overnight


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Let me know when you learn to read an equation and state what it says in english..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Let me know when you find anyone...….anyone who agrees with you and thinks Einstein was wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Let me know when you learn to read an equation and state what it says in english..


For Gods sake. You were shown how to read that equation time and again. You can't be that ignorant that you don't understand where it came from. Even Stefan, who did the original experiment, wrote that there was emission and absorption, and then combined the two into one equation. Only the stupidest of people would proclaim that emission totally stops between two objects at the same temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Let me know when you learn to read an equation and state what it says in english..
> ...



Really? Are you making the claim that you can read an equation? Here give it a try I'll get you started.







power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Why don't you give us a simple real world example of how that equation works?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Really? Are you making the claim that you can read an equation? Here give it a try I'll get you started.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tod in another thread said it could be that the atoms of CO2 never emit the photons toward warmer objects in the first place. These could be considered "smart molecules" vs "smart photons".

So which is it SSDD? is it the photons that shun warmer objects or are the CO2 molecules simply not releasing them in that direction?

We really would like you to elaborate on your new physics.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Are you making the claim that you can read an equation? Here give it a try I'll get you started.
> ...



So you either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...interesting


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



 how do you suppose it became a physical law?


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

I asked you this once before but I don't think I got back to see if you answered.  We have two interpretations of SB's law: one that uses nothing but the basic assumption that all matter radiates per its temperature regardless of its surroundings and YOURS, that contends all matter is somehow able to know the temperature of all matter around it and somehow adjust its radiation in response including somehow taking relativistic travel time into account.  The results regarding energy transferred are the same.  Why in god's name would you choose the interpretation that requires all the obviously impossible, voodoo-mumbo jumbo?  Eh?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...interesting


Cut out the troll crap. We have told you time and again how the equation is derived. Your reading differs from all text books, lectures, and journals, and you know it. Crick's above post challenges you to come up with some valid scientific justification, but you don't understand why you believe your crap. That makes you a troll.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Post a real world application of this equation. You don't  seem to understand the complexities of emissivity, or of the calculations for area. 

Your answer should be useful in demonstrating why intensity drops proportionally to 1/d^2


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> I asked you this once before but I don't think I got back to see if you answered.  We have two interpretations of SB's law: one that uses nothing but the basic assumption that all matter radiates per its temperature regardless of its surroundings and YOURS, that contends all matter is somehow able to know the temperature of all matter around it and somehow adjust its radiation in response including somehow taking relativistic travel time into account.  The results regarding energy transferred are the same.  Why in god's name would you choose the interpretation that requires all the obviously impossible, voodoo-mumbo jumbo?  Eh?




Actually, what you have is the law, and your wrong interpretation of it.






   This formula, which describes a black body radiating according to its temperature, applies only to a perfect black body sitting alone, in a perfect vacuum.  I took the time to have a few top shelf physicists point that out to ian a while back...the fact that you guys continue to believe that it doesn't apply only to perfect black bodies perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum is just one more reason that you have been fooled into buying into the scam.  You only read to justify your beliefs...it seems that none of you actually read anything with the intent of learning anything.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...interesting
> ...



So you still either can't read an equation or won't actually speak it either...still interesting


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Any measurement of energy movement from one object to another is a real world application of that equation...measure the rate qt which a bottle of 100 degree water cools sitting on a counter surrounded by 70 degree air, vs the rate at which a bottle of 100 degree water cools in a bath of 40 degree water.   Measure any other energy transfer you care to measure and you will have a real world application of the above equation....one way gross energy movement.  You can not measure energy moving from a cool object to a warm object because energy does not move in that direction any more than rocks fall up into the sky.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


So you still pretend to believe science is fairy dust. Troll.


----------



## IanC (Nov 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



That equation does not describe the rate of cooling. 

It only gives the net radiation between two objects for a single instant when the temperature of the two objects, the emissivity of the two objects, and the area of the facing surfaces are known.

The calculations for two cans of pop, one can width away, are already massively complex. Litre cartons as close as possible would allow a certain amount of simplifying assumptions but in any case the emergent temperature gradients as time passed would quickly make any calculations impossible without a computer and calculus.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> That equation does not describe the rate of cooling.



Really?  If you know how much energy an object is losing, you can't calculate its rate of cooling?



IanC said:


> It only gives the net radiation between two objects for a single instant when the temperature of the two objects, the emissivity of the two objects, and the area of the facing surfaces are known.



There is no radiation exchange between the objects...there is only one way gross energy movement from the warmer to the cooler object...if you think otherwise, I will wait for you to provide an observed measured example of spontaneous energy movement between two objects.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Funny...coming from someone who can't even state what an equation describing a physical phenomenon is saying in plain english.

Want to try again?






Power equals the emissivity of the object times the Stefan-Boatsman constant times the area of the object times what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > That equation does not describe the rate of cooling.
> ...



* If you know how much energy an object is losing, you can't calculate its rate of cooling?*

Not when you ignore how much energy it's absorbing.

*There is no radiation exchange between the objects...*

All by yourself. Weird.

*I will wait for you to provide an observed measured example of spontaneous energy movement between two objects.*

I will wait for you to provide an observed measured example of zero energy movement between two objects at equilibrium..


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It says- 

Pnet = Pwarm - Pcool


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not when you ignore how much energy it's absorbing.



Got any measurements of a warm object absorbing energy spontaneously emitted from a cooler object?  Didn't think so.

Not when you ignore how much energy it's absorbing.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> All by yourself. Weird.



I don't need anyone to agree with me in order to be confident of my position..You know who is only comfortable with being part of a group that agrees with them?  Sheep.  Lets hear a great big old baaahhhh toddster....say it once...bbbaaaaaahhhhhh.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I will wait for you to provide an observed measured example of zero energy movement between two objects at equilibrium..



Any measurement made of objects of the same temperature will do...they will all show the same thing...and it isn't an exchange of energy.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



There is no net...there is only one way gross energy flow...but do feel free to provide a measurement of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...your models don't mean jack if they can't reflect reality.

Thanks for acknowledging that you can't read an equation either....you guys are a hoot...for all your bullshit, none of you can bring yourselves to actually speak the equation in plain english...willful ignorance at its zenith.


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > That equation does not describe the rate of cooling.
> ...



Please explain how you rearrange the terms in the SB equation to get a rate of cooling.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Funny...coming from someone who can't even state what an equation describing a physical phenomenon is saying in plain english.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> ...


This is in all text books and lectures. You have seen it dozens of times. It is really quite simple. It is amazing that you are still pretending you don't understand it.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 1, 2018)

Here is the text that you are pretending to ignore.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> Please explain how you rearrange the terms in the SB equation to get a rate of cooling.



Not going to help you ian....interesting though, that you think it is not possible to calculate the rate at which an object is cooling.


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Physics is the study of cause and effect.

An object radiates according to how much energy it contains, always. The net loss of energy per unit of time is calculated by subtracting the externally produced radiation being absorbed from the internally produced radiation being emitted by the object.

You have confused cause and effect. You claim the amount of radiation  an object emits is controlled by other external objects, no matter how far away. 

You give no explanation how this could happen. On the other hand my statement is easily explained by moving charged particles, an internal condition unrelated to other external  conditions.


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain how you rearrange the terms in the SB equation to get a rate of cooling.
> ...



I never said you couldn't calculate a cooling rate. I said you couldn't derive it from the SB equation. You said you could so prove it


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Here is the text that you are pretending to ignore.




Yep...seen it before.  The actual SB law assumes that T > Tc.  In your equation, it is possible to set T>Tc.

Further, The SB law is a direct extension of Planck's law...care to show me the two way version of Planck's law?  Didn't think so.  And you equation simply assumes net...got any actual measurement of two way spontaneous net energy flow?  Didn't think so.

You are a dupe and you will always be a dupe.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> Physics is the study of cause and effect.



So you have no measurement of spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer object...that's what I said.



IanC said:


> An object radiates according to how much energy it contains, always. The net loss of energy per unit of time is calculated by subtracting the externally produced radiation being absorbed from the internally produced radiation being emitted by the object.



If it is a perfect black body, all alone in a perfect vacuum, sure....but if it isn't, then it doesn't...it radiates according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.

All measurements of energy flow support my position, while none support yours...cause and effect in the real world...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Further, The SB law is a direct extension of Planck's law...care to show me the two way version of Planck's law? Didn't think so. And you equation simply assumes net...got any actual measurement of two way spontaneous net energy flow? Didn't think so.


Non-sequitur.


SSDD said:


> You are a dupe and you will always be a dupe.


You are calling all scientists dupes. Only a troll would do that.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I never said that either....you are as bad as wuwei with regard to altering what someone said and then arguing with your version of what was said...

I only said that if you know how much energy an object is losing that you could calculate its rate of cooling...you disagree with that statement?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Non-sequitur.



Says the guy who can't read a simple equation and state in plain english what it is describing.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Says the guy who can't read a simple equation and state in plain english what it is describing.


Says the guy who knows what the science of the SB equation is, but lies about it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Says the guy who can't read a simple equation and state in plain english what it is describing.
> ...



I can bring myself to say what the equation says....I don't have a religious belief in something that requires that I not actually say it.  How does that feel?...to not be able to read an equation and say what the equations says because it would conflict with your beliefs?

And again, the SB law assumes that T> or =Tc ALWAYS...any form of the equation that would allow that assumption to be violated is false...perhaps texts used to support the AGW hoax might use it, and not bother to tell the students about the whole T>=Tc thing, but then then honesty isn't all that important when you are supporting a hoax, is it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Not when you ignore how much energy it's absorbing.
> ...



*Got any measurements of a warm object absorbing energy spontaneously emitted from a cooler object?  *

Got anyone who agrees with your ridiculous one way claims?
Got anyone explaining the mechanism behind your dimmer switch theory of radiating?

*I don't need anyone to agree with me in order to be confident of my position..*

Yes, you have that in common with the deeply ignorant and the mentally ill.

*You know who is only comfortable with being part of a group that agrees with them?*

I am comfortable being part of a group that includes Einstein, Kirchoff, Wien and Planck.....
versus you, all by yourself. Very comfortable.

*Any measurement made of objects of the same temperature will do...they will all show the same thing...and it isn't an exchange of energy.*

Any link explicitly stating that? Because I have plenty that say "at thermal equilibrium, the power _radiated_ by an object must be equal to the power _absorbed_.”


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*And again, the SB law assumes that T> or =Tc ALWAYS*

Nope. Wrong.





Stefan-Boltzmann Law

_While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object._


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And again, the SB law assumes that T> or =Tc ALWAYS...any form of the equation that would allow that assumption to be violated is false...perhaps texts used to support the AGW hoax might use it, and not bother to tell the students about the whole T>=Tc thing, but then then honesty isn't all that important when you are supporting a hoax, is it?



Say, Troll, that is a lie. Look at the last paragraph of the following text that is accepted by all scientists: 





.


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2018)

Same Shit, *give **IT* *UP*


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And again, the SB law assumes that T> or =Tc ALWAYS...any form of the equation that would allow that assumption to be violated is false...perhaps texts used to support the AGW hoax might use it, and not bother to tell the students about the whole T>=Tc thing, but then then honesty isn't all that important when you are supporting a hoax, is it?
> ...



Does your "version" of the equation allow you to set T to a temperature greater than Tc?  If so, then it allows you to violate the assumption in the SB law that T is always greater than or equal to Tc and therefore is an invalid equation...

Once again...fooled by bullshit...got any actual measurement of that hypothetical spontaneous two way net energy flow?  Didn't think so but every measurement ever made supports the actual SB law which describes one way gross energy movement.  Unless you have something new, this has all been said before and you have demonstrated adequately your willingness to ignore all of reality in favor of unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable models...there really is no need to go through it again.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> Same Shit, *give **IT* *UP*



You are probably right...you guys are so thoroughly duped that you will probably die as dupes...sad, but that is observable, measurable reality.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?




Because it is the actual physical law..and is supported by every observation and measurement ever made...we have never recorded "net" energy flow between objects...all measurements ever made show one way gross energy flow. Why do you accept a formula other than the actual SB law...a formula in which Tc can be set to a higher temperature than T which violates a basic tenet of the SB law, and a formula which has no observed, measured evidence to back it up? 

We all know why you accept it skidmark...because you are a putz.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

Show us ANY REFERENCE that states the temperature inequality in SB has to be in a specific direction.  ANY REFERENCE?  You claim it is a tenet of the law.  Surely someone, somewhere would have told us that.  Let's see it fool.

Of course, textbooks have already been posted here discussing the inequality going in either direction.  But you want to pretend they don't exist, that they weren't posted here for all to read.  What sort of fucking world do you live in dude.  I think you need to get some help.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> Show us ANY REFERENCE that states the temperature inequality in SB has to be in a specific direction.  ANY REFERENCE?  You claim it is a tenet of the law.  Surely someone, somewhere would have told us that.  Let's see it fool.
> 
> Of course, textbooks have already been posted here discussing the inequality going in either direction.  But you want to pretend they don't exist, that they weren't posted here for all to read.  What sort of fucking world do you live in dude.  I think you need to get some help.


Sorry you can't read an equation...it is right there in black and white if you weren't to stupid to read it.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

Were you too stupid to read Wuwei textbook extract discussing it going in both directions?  I guess so...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Does your "version" of the equation allow you to set T to a temperature greater than Tc? If so, then it allows you to violate the assumption in the SB law that T is always greater than or equal to Tc and therefore is an invalid equation..


It said right in the text that I cited that you are wrong. It is amazing that you think you know what the SB equation is. Stefan even disagrees with you in his seminal paper.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

No point talking to you till such time as you demonstrate that you can read a simple equation...let me know when you learn how.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No point talking to you till such time as you demonstrate that you can read a simple equation...let me know when you learn how.


You can't give any scientific reference can you. No wonder you want to abort the discussion. Your'e all alone in an embarrassing situation of mocking all science.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

That isn't what the equation says.....try again.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> That isn't what the equation says.....try again.


Look at the paper I cited. It doesn't say your crap. You are lying again.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.







Power equals the emissivity of the object, times the S-B constant times the area of the object times.......


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







This is what it says. It is in plain English. It is what all scientists know, and you don't. We have gone through this many times and you have no observed experimental proof it is wrong. Troll.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*assumption in the SB law that T is always greater than or equal to Tc and therefore is an invalid equation...*

The equation only works when an object is hotter than it's surroundings?

That's hilarious! Much dumber than your usual errors.

That's JC456 level dumb.


----------



## Crick (Dec 4, 2018)

Claes Johnson, unpublished (in climate science) Swedish mathematician-at-large says it is so.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Does your "version" of the equation allow you to set T to a temperature greater than Tc? If so, then it allows you to violate the assumption in the SB law that T is always greater than or equal to Tc and therefore is an invalid equation...


There is no separate "version" of the SB law. You already know that Tc can be larger. It simply shows that the object under question is colder than the background and is heating up. You are lying again. 



SSDD said:


> Once again...fooled by bullshit...got any actual measurement of that hypothetical spontaneous two way net energy flow? Didn't think so but every measurement ever made supports the actual SB law which describes one way gross energy movement. Unless you have something new, this has all been said before and you have demonstrated adequately your willingness to ignore all of reality in favor of unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable models...there really is no need to go through it again.


Wrong again. One way energy flow violates quantum mechanics.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Does your "version" of the equation allow you to set T to a temperature greater than Tc? If so, then it allows you to violate the assumption in the SB law that T is always greater than or equal to Tc and therefore is an invalid equation...
> ...



Two way flows mean the lower temperature object must LOSE temperature at some point during the exchange, has this ever been observed in what we call reality?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



..... times the differences between the fourth power of temperatures. If P is positive it is radiating more power to the background than it receiving. If P is negative it is receiving more power from the background than it is radiating.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.
> ...



If it were a net exchange, you'd need infinite time to reach equilibrium


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Two way flows mean the lower temperature object must LOSE temperature at some point during the exchange, *

The lower temperature object receives more power than it emits. That's why it warms.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



So it's a gross flow, not a net flow


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 4, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If it were a net exchange, you'd need infinite time to reach equilibrium



That's right. The temperature changes follow an exponential decreasing law. There is a point where it is unmeasurably small.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Both objects radiate.


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2018)

Yo, Same Shit!  Where is the qualification in the SB law that compensates for surrounding temperature as you would have.  

*Stefan-Boltzmann law*, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations: if _E_ is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second and _T_ is the absolute temperature (in degrees Kelvin), then _E_= σ_T_4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670367 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.
> ...



Where do you read in the equation that Tc can't be larger than T. There is no reference nor anything in the formula that says that one temperature is smaller than the other. You not only can't read the equation, but you disagree with the laws of physics.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


_Where do you read in the equation that Tc can't be larger than T_
For only 25$ even you can join the USC , the Union of Concerned "Scientists" and be a "scientist" even though you have no idea why the  -Tc^4   has the letter c . What do you think the "c" stands for, if not for labeling the colder of the 2 temperatures ?
According to you (and some other yahoos) P can be negative, no problem.
Negative power/energy and such only exists in the kind of "science" used for stuff like this:





  Statements like the negative power crap you post is a clear indication that you have no clue.
In engineering and *science,* *dimensional analysis* is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their base quantities (such as length, mass, time,)
In dimensional analysis 1 Watt is defined as mass * distance^2 * Time ^-3.
The *watt* (symbol: *W*) is a unit of power. In the International System of Units (SI) it is defined as a derived unit of 1 joule per second,[1] and is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer. In dimensional analysis it is described by mass * distance squared * time to the neg.3rd power
Crick Wuwei and Toddster can demonstrate that the StB equation can be used to prove that it is possible to get a negative result  for M*L^2* T^(-3) any time you want to.
Now we know how UFO`s can fly using negative energy as anti-gravity.


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2018)

Are you joining Same Shit with his claim that cold matter cannot radiate towards warmer matter?

I'm pretty sure that those of us actually in this conversation are familiar with dimensional analysis.  However, I have no idea what bearing you think it has on the possible signs of the two T values.  And your argument that Tc has to be the colder temperature is ridiculous.  I can find a dozen articles on SB two-body radiation that do not use the term Tc and you can present NO text from any authority supporting SSDD's absurd contention.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 11, 2018)

Crick said:


> Are you joining Same Shit with his claim that cold matter cannot radiate towards warmer matter?


Where did I say that?
I did say that jokers like you keep saying that P can be negative and all you can do is ask me a question which is as stupid as a negative P.
TYPICAL !
Now your confused little peabrain has me allegedly  saying that cold matter cannot radiate towards warmer matter because I showed you how absurd your negative power concept is.
Now I know for sure that SSDD never said that, because you tried just now to go off on the same tangent with me.
HTF could you possibly function in the real world?
Hahahaha does your car have a gas pedal and a "negative power" pedal right next to it?


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2018)

Then, I repeat, what was the point of your discussion of dimensional analysis?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2018)

polarbear said:


> _Where do you read in the equation that Tc can't be larger than T_
> For only 25$ even you can join the USC , the Union of Concerned "Scientists" and be a "scientist" even though you have no idea why the -Tc^4 has the letter c . What do you think the "c" stands for, if not for labeling the colder of the 2 temperatures ?
> According to you (and some other yahoos) P can be negative, no problem.
> Negative power/energy and such only exists in the kind of "science" used for stuff like this:
> ...



My God. I don't know why you are always so testy and belligerently sarcastic. You try to demonstrate your knowledge of physics, but you fail to understand what you are talking about.

SSDD quoted a particular formula that Tod posted in # 874 of this thread.






Please notice that *Tc is defined as the temperature of the surroundings*. The magnitude wrt the radiator is not defined. And please read the text in the last paragraph where they explain the meaning of the case where Tc>T.

You are just as bad as SSDD when it comes to huffing at people when you fail to understand the physics that is being referred to.

.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > _Where do you read in the equation that Tc can't be larger than T_
> ...


Says so right there that Tc is the* cooler *of the 2. And R Nave ( the author of that page) is full of shit by saying that a negative answer "implies" that we are still talking about P being net *RADIATED power..*..also called emission and emitted power can never be negative.  no matter if you put it in a box with a heading "Heat Radiation" and publish it on the internet.
There is no such thing in this universe that radiates a negative P, but there are things that absorb power and in that case we call it* ABSORPTION not a "net negative radiative transfer"*
In addition to that it is wrong to use the emissivity *"e"* of one of the 2 objects instead of the albedo *"a" *for this so called "net negative radiative transfer" that any sane person would call absorption.
The only case where the albedo a or emissivity e is irrelevant  is for 2 *ideal black bodies at T and Tc *deg Kelvin...*and if  the author envisions that as a "typical situation" he must have got his physics diploma from the same place as Al Gore.*

*
*


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2018)

The emitted power of a mass that is receiving more than it is emitting is negative.

The received power of a mass that is emitting more than it is receiving is negative.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*Says so right there that Tc is the cooler of the 2. *

Wrong.





Says it could be hotter or cooler.

*And R Nave ( the author of that page) is full of shit by saying that a negative answer "implies" that we are still talking about P being net RADIATED power..*

It is net.

*also called emission and emitted power can never be negative. *

Net can't be negative? LOL!


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2018)

P Bear.  Are you man enough to admit your mistake?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2018)

polarbear said:


> In addition to that it is wrong to use the emissivity *"e"* of one of the 2 objects instead of the albedo *"a" *for this so called "net negative radiative transfer" that any sane person would call absorption.



With the SB law you only have to deal with one object -- the object simply radiates according to T⁴.

It is Kirchhoff's law that allows you to also deal with absorption. Kirchhoff formally showed that the factor for both emission and absorption are identical, so if a background is radiating at the object, you can algebraically factor out the emissivity and sigma from both emission and absorption to get the subtracted form, εσ(T₁⁴–T₂⁴).


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2018)

polarbear said:


> R Nave ( the author of that page) is full of shit


All text books and scientists believe the hyperphysics site that Tod posted. When you say that the author is full of shit you are saying all physicists are full of shit. That is what SSDD continually does. Is that how you want to be known too?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > R Nave ( the author of that page) is full of shit
> ...


Shit is when somebody calls absorption a "negative emission"...and shit is when somebody else says all physicists and all text books call absorption "negative emission" because an  internet web site calling itself "Hyperphysics" says so. The internet and this forum are the only place where idiots say that the increase of deltaE of any electron in any atom was the result of a "negative emission".
Physicists like Planck, Einstein etc  call that  absorption because the electron absorbed a photon and call it emission when it looses deltaE later by emitting a photon. We also have absorption and emission spectral lines but no "negative emission" lines.
Google it, because its obvious that none of you actually read any real text books, let alone possess any:
_As the photons of light are *absorbed* by electrons, the electrons move into higher energy levels. This is the opposite process of *emission*. The dark lines, *absorption* lines, correspond to the frequencies of the *emission spectrum* of the same element._
Hahahaha the absorption lines are supposedly dark because they are caused by the  "dark photons" of the negative radiation...
Not so strange is that the only web sites or people who yap about "negative emission" or "negative heat radiation" are the same ones who advocate AGW. and publish doomsday warnings day in day out.
You will love this "scientist" just as much as M.Mann, maybe even more:https://ijoer.com/Paper-March-2018/IJOER-MAR-2018-18.pdf
*Cold Photons in Space & Hot Photons in Atmosphere: *A Review
Dr Bijay Kumar Parida (MS, FRCSG
_Space is dark because the photons released from sun have lost energy and became cold photons during their passage towards earth. Because photons do not have energy in space, so space is cold. When photons reach atmosphere, it hitssuspended particles and get annihilated. Thus these photons produce energy and light is seen._


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 12, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



"As the photons of light are *absorbed* by electrons, the electrons move into higher energy levels. This is the opposite process of *emission*. The dark lines, *absorption* lines, correspond to the frequencies of the *emission spectrum* of the same element."

I leaned that concept in Chemistry class a few decades ago, it is 101 stuff.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 12, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


It is simple 101 stuff. But I know the reason why they cling to this weird concept calling it "negative radiation transfer", back radiation  or whatever else. Of course a colder body can and does radiate towards a hotter one but it can not heat it up. The only thing that happens is that the cooling rate of the hotter one is slightly less as is correctly formulated by the Boltzmann equation. To heat it up to a higher temperature you need a higher temperature source like the sun. Every physicist knows it and  so does any climatologist who gets to brag he is with NASA. The problem is to calculate accurately by how much the CO2 can slow the cooling so that you can get to the equilibrium temperature where radiation absorbed/per area and time is the same as radiation emitted up and out. They simply short circuit that by saying that according to Wien`s displacement the 15 micron CO2 absorption line equates to ~ - 80 C using the Boltzmann equation and then tell you the radiation "imbalance" for that T in Kelvin and the "global average" T.
That simpleton "solution" was an easy sell and all the simple minded people bought into this "science".
All except the skeptics that are either "Oil lobby conspirators" or "science deniers".
You are either one of those if you point out the fact that this "science" has no need to show the difference between the amount of energy absorbed by 200 ppm and double that...because no matter the 15 micron band equates to -80 C and plugging that into the StB equation as Tc and the world average as T* you get the same result for any CO2 ppm and the solar output variations are also irrelevant.*
That is the basis of their "science" and for those who laugh at it they have tons of line graphs with the vastly blown up T anomaly on the Y axis and the time in years on the X axis..*.but never any graph that shows T on the Y axis and ppm CO2 on the X-axis.*


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Shit is when somebody calls absorption a "negative emission"...and shit is when somebody else says all physicists and all text books call absorption "negative emission"


You built a strawman. "Negative emission" is a phrase you made up as far as the SB equation is concerned. No source we gave you says negative emission is another name for absorption.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Shit is when somebody calls absorption a "negative emission"...and shit is when somebody else says all physicists and all text books call absorption "negative emission"
> ...


Radiating a  negative P has to come from some source emitting it. So now you better explain how something that is  an emitter of positive P can do that. Maybe all these strawman scientists who you say all say so put it in these textbooks for strawman brained people who keep publishing HYPERPHYSICS for uber "scientists" like you to quote.
Wow that author calles it "Hyperphysics" and probably dresses up like Spock to look the part of a "hyper scientist."
I am still waiting for you to show me a statement from Planck or Einstein about something radiating negative P.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 12, 2018)

Energy is either emitted or absorbed and is always a positive quantity.
You can chose your own "hyper physics" word for your hyper physics fantasy world where it can be negative. I don`t care what you call it.
"Dark photons" would be just as good. Maybe that`s how the klingons cloak their starships  while cruising in hyper drive through hyper space.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Google it, because its obvious that none of you actually read any real text books, let alone possess any:
> _As the photons of light are *absorbed* by electrons, the electrons move into higher energy levels. This is the opposite process of *emission*. The dark lines, *absorption* lines, correspond to the frequencies of the *emission spectrum* of the same element._


You and sunsettommy are confused. Only short wave photons - visible, or near visible - can be absorbed by electrons orbiting nuclei. In atmospheric physics the emissions at ambient temperatures are long wave radiation. Those photons  don't have near enough energy to excite an *orbital electron*. 

The long wave radiation from the earth excites *vibration modes* of the GHGs. I would think you would know that by now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



*Radiating a negative P has to come from some source emitting it. *

Nothing is "radiating a negative P".
Net Power is either negative or positive.

If your strawman is warmer, its Net Power is positive, because it radiates more than it absorbs.
If your strawman is cooler, its Net Power is negative, because it absorbs more than it radiates.

In neither case is there a "negative emission"


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Radiating a negative P has to come from some source emitting it. So now you better explain how something that is an emitter of positive P can do that.


It should be obvious that the object with temperature Tc becomes the source. It radiates more than it receives from the object at temperature T. 

If it bothers you that Tc > T just interchange the two terms Tc and T:

-P = εσ(T⁴–Tc⁴)  becomes P = εσ(Tc⁴–T⁴)

Now both sides of the equation are positive with the source and background exchanging places.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating a negative P has to come from some source emitting it. So now you better explain how something that is an emitter of positive P can do that.
> ...


It does not "bother" me it`s just* plain stupid *to do it the other way around and declare that P can be negative and then come up with idiotic "explanations" why it can. *It can not *so there is no instance where you can interchange them without consequence. But I am quite aware why the "hyperphysics" climate "scientists" are hell bent to do just that. I explained it a couple of hours ago, (post 916.) Then I went shopping, enjoyed the food at the deli while you were ceaselessly hunched over your PC or whatever conjuring up more of the same crap to post here. If you would spend more time reading real science you would never come up with negative P or  ideas that you can interchange the 2 T`s as if it was a summation instead of a subtraction.
If P can be negative then why would you even need 2 T`s?
You can just solve for T from  say -100 Watts/m^2 using the Boltzman equation and publish the result here. I`ll even go ahead and do that for you:
[start]
input"Watts per m^2 heat radiation ";P
B=5.670373 * 10^(-8)
t=P/B
k=(log(t))/4
k=exp(k)
print"Heat radiation source= ";k
[goto start]
Strange thing happens. My program halts and displays "Run Time Error invalid operation" if I input a negative number for P. Hahaha Why do you suppose that is?

But it all makes sense if you are a liberal. They don`t need to work for a living they can just go out enjoy live and do some "negative spending".


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2018)

polarbear said:


> It does not "bother" me it`s just* plain stupid *to do it the other way around and declare that P can be negative and then come up with idiotic "explanations" why it can. *It can not *so there is no instance where you can interchange them without consequence. But I am quite aware why the "hyperphysics" climate "scientists" are hell bent to do just that. I explained it a couple of hours ago, (post 916.) Then I went shopping, enjoyed the food at the deli while you were ceaselessly hunched over your PC or whatever conjuring up more of the same crap to post here. If you would spend more time reading real science you would never come up with negative P or ideas that you can interchange the 2 T`s as if it was a summation instead of a subtraction. But it all makes sense if you are a liberal. They don`t need to work for a living they can just go out enjoy live and do some "negative spending".



Wow, are you ever spewing out anger! I'm just talking about century old basic physics at a time when there was no concern about the current social complexities of warmers and deniers; and physical complexities of the atmosphere. 

*...as if it was a summation instead of a subtraction...*
It's very simple basic arithmetic!!

If you think the hyperphysics explanation is plain stupid, how would you write the SB equation for a cold sphere suspended from the ceiling in the middle of a uniformly warm room. We already know how to do it if the sphere is warmer than the room

.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2018)

polarbear said:


> If P can be negative then why would you even need 2 T`s?
> You can just solve for T from say -100 Watts/m^2 using the Boltzman equation and publish the result here. I`ll even go ahead and do that for you:
> [start]
> input"Watts per m^2 heat radiation ";P
> ...



It's easy. Your equation and data models a physical system that violates the second law of thermodynamics. The model gave you the correct answer, "invalid". SSDD once made a similar silly mistake. He could not understand his mistake. Do you understand your mistake?

.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > It does not "bother" me it`s just* plain stupid *to do it the other way around and declare that P can be negative and then come up with idiotic "explanations" why it can. *It can not *so there is no instance where you can interchange them without consequence. But I am quite aware why the "hyperphysics" climate "scientists" are hell bent to do just that. I explained it a couple of hours ago, (post 916.) Then I went shopping, enjoyed the food at the deli while you were ceaselessly hunched over your PC or whatever conjuring up more of the same crap to post here. If you would spend more time reading real science you would never come up with negative P or ideas that you can interchange the 2 T`s as if it was a summation instead of a subtraction. But it all makes sense if you are a liberal. They don`t need to work for a living they can just go out enjoy live and do some "negative spending".
> ...


And there it is again, the usual spiel. Copy and paste the "anger spewing" part I am supposed to be guilty of and file a complaint with Cathy Areu or whoever is  your local liberal sherpa.
I should have guessed it you   can`t handle criticism and need to be cuddled. 
And now you have a problem figuring out why the SB equation as it is already states how much radiation the colder sphere* absorbs*. No need to reverse the T^4 -Tc^4 subtraction  and change the SB equation to the BS equation Tc^4 - T^4 and calculate how much negative P bullshit comes out after that.
Hahaha, like the room must have gotten warmer as soon as the cold sphere was added and it also radiates . How much warmer ask the warmists?  By as much as σ*_(_Tc^4 - Tw^4) watts more per m^2 "negative net radiated power" as without it sayeth the hyperphysics hyper idiots.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Google it, because its obvious that none of you actually read any real text books, let alone possess any:
> ...


Geezus I almost overlooked this "scientific" gem Wuwei posted here:
"_You and sunsettommy are confused. Only short wave photons - visible, or near visible - can be absorbed by electrons orbiting nuclei. In atmospheric physics the emissions at ambient temperatures are long wave radiation. Those photons  don't have near enough energy to excite an *orbital electron*_."
According to him every CO2 absorption band every IR spec-scope detected has nothing to do with the electrons that make up the O=C=O double bonds and all the text books that say so have to be replaced with Wuwei "hyperphysics".


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




Funny, isn't it...when you point out that they are wrong...and can't produce a single piece of actual evidence to support their claims, they mewl about how angry we are...

Over the years, it has become obvious that in order to be a true believer, they must be willing to drag their poor intellects through any sewer laid before them...

And as far as the S-B equation goes, he just can't get past the fact that the S-B law implicitly assumes that T>Tc....but he insists on using this bullshit equation which allows T<Tc, then claims negative radiation.  Then there is the fact that you can't use the SB equation on gasses...but hey, they are willing to drag their intellects through that sewer as far as they feel is necessary.


----------



## Crick (Dec 13, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



He is correct. Flexing the bonds (ie, vibrations) does not alter the orbital shells of the electrons.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2018)

polarbear said:


> And there it is again, the usual spiel. Copy and paste the "anger spewing" part I am supposed to be guilty of and file a complaint with Cathy Areu or whoever is your local liberal sherpa.
> I should have guessed it you can`t handle criticism and need to be cuddled.
> And now you have a problem figuring out why the SB equation as it is already states how much radiation the colder sphere* absorbs*. No need to reverse the T^4 -Tc^4 subtraction and change the SB equation to the BS equation Tc^4 - T^4 and calculate how much negative P bullshit comes out after that.
> Hahaha, like the room must have gotten warmer as soon as the cold sphere was added and it also radiates . How much warmer ask the warmists? By as much as σ*_(_Tc^4 - Tw^4) watts more per m^2 "negative net radiated power" as without it sayeth the hyperphysics hyper idiots.



Your verbose maniacal ranting did not include the answer to the question. It could be hidden in your last sentence, but you changed the notation and didn't define the variables. I'm not going to try to second guess you.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2018)

polarbear said:


> According to him every CO2 absorption band every IR spec-scope detected has nothing to do with the electrons that make up the O=C=O double bonds and all the text books that say so have to be replaced with Wuwei "hyperphysics".


It seems you don't know the basics of atomic physics. Crick gave you the details on the vibration mode.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Funny, isn't it...when you point out that they are wrong...and can't produce a single piece of actual evidence to support their claims, they mewl about how angry we are...
> 
> Over the years, it has become obvious that in order to be a true believer, they must be willing to drag their poor intellects through any sewer laid before them...
> 
> And as far as the S-B equation goes, he just can't get past the fact that the S-B law implicitly assumes that T>Tc....but he insists on using this bullshit equation which allows T<Tc, then claims negative radiation. Then there is the fact that you can't use the SB equation on gasses...but hey, they are willing to drag their intellects through that sewer as far as they feel is necessary.


*And as far as the S-B equation goes, he just can't get past the fact that the S-B law implicitly assumes that T>Tc....but he insists on using this bullshit equation which allows T<Tc, then claims negative radiation.*

You are wrong, but I think it's possible polarbear knows what is happening with two way radiation exchange. It is the word games he is playing that confuse you. However if he really is one of your fake science disciples, I'm sure he will correct me.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > According to him every CO2 absorption band every IR spec-scope detected has nothing to do with the electrons that make up the O=C=O double bonds and all the text books that say so have to be replaced with Wuwei "hyperphysics".
> ...


Hahaha so says the idiot who claims that photons in the IR can`t bump up electron orbitals that resonate at the appropriate frequency. I would like to have a good laugh and see an expert in "hyper atomic physics" like you & Crick show us why not. Crick gave me what? The details on the vibration mode ? No thanks I prefer the official version


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Hahaha so says the idiot who claims that photons in the IR can`t bump up electron orbitals that resonate at the appropriate frequency.


Of course they can if any electron orbital energy levels of the molecules exist at far IR. If so, they would show up in the absorption spectra. They don't show up for CO2.


----------



## Crick (Dec 13, 2018)

Mr P Bear, you have not answered the question.  You seem to be aligning yourself with SSDD's contention that matter does not radiate towards warmer matter.  Is that correct?  Is that your belief?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 13, 2018)

Crick said:


> Mr P Bear, you have not answered the question.  You seem to be aligning yourself with SSDD's contention that matter does not radiate towards warmer matter.  Is that correct?  Is that your belief?


You know damn well that I never said anything of the kind and I know damn well what your motive is, pretending not to know what I did say. For the last time: It does ! And all that results in is a slower rate of cooling EXACTLY AS PER StB. That must be now more than a dozen times that I told you. How many more times are you going to pretend I refused to answer ? Why don`t you try to be honest just for once and admit that its not my answer about radiation you want to hear. It`s an answer that you can twist into something to stab  your arch enemy in the back...else you would not build in SSDD into it every time you ask me about heat radiation. I never seen him phrase it the way you do but I have seen you dozens of time trying that same crap with me....and almost everybody else who disagrees with you.


----------



## Crick (Dec 13, 2018)

So, you believe matter is aware of its surroundings and only emits towards cooler matter.

What if that matter is a thousand light years away and is, when observed, only minutely warmer and in the midst of a process that will result in its cooling dramatically before the thousand years have passed before its IR photons would arrive there?  Eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2018)

Crick said:


> So, you believe matter is aware of its surroundings and only emits towards cooler matter.
> 
> What if that matter is a thousand light years away and is, when observed, only minutely warmer and in the midst of a process that will result in its cooling dramatically before the thousand years have passed before its IR photons would arrive there?  Eh?



I think he's saying he disagrees with SSDD's smart emitter fantasy.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 13, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Hahaha so says the idiot who claims that photons in the IR can`t bump up electron orbitals that resonate at the appropriate frequency.
> ...


The stupidity of that statement  exceeds the capability of the English vocabulary to express it.
I thought everybody who discusses physics here knew that covalent bonds consist of coupled electron pairs and not of the  little sticks or springs they use in the animations for teenage school kids.
WTF do you think happens when CO2 absorbs IR? Photons "hit" the little balls on these sticks and make them jiggle? Look I can`t be bothered to continue this conversation with somebody like you. That`s why they have minimum standard exams in the real world which you could not possibly pass before somebody like me would be obliged to humor you.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 13, 2018)

Crick said:


> So, you believe matter is aware of its surroundings and only emits towards cooler matter.
> 
> What if that matter is a thousand light years away and is, when observed, only minutely warmer and in the midst of a process that will result in its cooling dramatically before the thousand years have passed before its IR photons would arrive there?  Eh?


Yeah just like I said...you have people saying all kinds of dumb stuff, like "matter is aware of its surroundings Eh?"..How pathetic is that when you have to fantasize idiotic statements that nobody made so that you have a metric which supports your delusions of intellectual grandeur ?
You hear voices in your head telling you  I wrote anything along these lines?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, you believe matter is aware of its surroundings and only emits towards cooler matter.
> ...



*you have people saying all kinds of dumb stuff, like "matter is aware of its surroundings"*

When you say it out loud, SSDD's idiocy is inescapable.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, you believe matter is aware of its surroundings and only emits towards cooler matter.
> ...



They are referring to me...although I never said that matter is aware of anything...again, fabricating statements from their opponents to argue against, rather than simply arguing against what was said.  I simply said that energy obeys the second law of thermodynamics and doesn't transfer from cool to warm...they believe that somehow energy, or matter or both must be aware in order to obey the laws of physics...they fail to grasp that the laws of physics are what they are because of they way energy and matter react.  If energy spontaneously and freely moved from cool to warm, then the second law of thermodynamics wouldn't exist.

I guess they think rocks know which way the ground is when they are dropped since apparently they have to be aware in order to obey the laws of physics...I guess they think if you drop enough rocks, sooner or later you will get one that isn't aware of which way is down and it will fall up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



* I simply said that energy obeys the second law of thermodynamics and doesn't transfer from cool to warm*

Exactly!
Energy simply knows the temperature of matter millions of light years away, millions of years in the future and simply refuses to move in the direction of a warmer, future target. Simple.

DURR!


----------



## Crick (Dec 14, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, you believe matter is aware of its surroundings and only emits towards cooler matter.
> ...



IF YOU SAY THAT COOLER MATTER WILL NOT RADIATE TOWARDS WARMER MATTER THAT IS FUCKING *EXACTLY* WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2018)

polarbear said:


> The stupidity of that statement exceeds the capability of the English vocabulary to express it.
> I thought everybody who discusses physics here knew that covalent bonds consist of coupled electron pairs and not of the little sticks or springs they use in the animations for teenage school kids.
> WTF do you think happens when CO2 absorbs IR? Photons "hit" the little balls on these sticks and make them jiggle? Look I can`t be bothered to continue this conversation with somebody like you. That`s why they have minimum standard exams in the real world which you could not possibly pass before somebody like me would be obliged to humor you.



What is the point of your ill-tempered post?  It is not clear in your post whether you believe vibration modes exist or not. I really don't care, but if you are interested, this Caltech site gives details of the vibration modes of triatomic molecules.
IR Spectrum
The vibration modes were seen in CO2 absorption spectra, but the electronic excitations are way too high for earth thermal radiation to excite, so it's the solar radiation that does it.

What is interesting at the Caltech site is that even if the GHG is in an electronic excited state due to SW radiation, the LW IR vibration modes can still occur.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2018)

Crick said:


> IF YOU SAY THAT COOLER MATTER WILL NOT RADIATE TOWARDS WARMER MATTER THAT IS FUCKING *EXACTLY* WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.



It is never clear what pbear thinks. He likes to obfuscate his thoughts. One reason that seems plausible is if someone challenges him, he can then rant back at them for misunderstanding him. 

It seems that pbear, ssdd, and the other deniers are only interested in playing word games, and not so much interested in what the physics actually involves. If I am wrong, then we have to assume that they are incredibly stupid. 
.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 14, 2018)

Crick said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Myohmy all in caps..."THAT IS FUCKING *EXACTLY* WHAT YOU ARE SAYING"
I kept telling you the exact opposite over and over again.This forum is as good as an interactive version of a Yosemite Sam cartoon, even better. All it takes is not to say what you want me to say to make your head explode. Hahahaha makes me wonder why I should not manipulate your blood pressure  some more till  you wind up wearing a medical bracelet.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2018)

I've already got one asshole.


----------

