AGW: atmospheric physics

[IanC]

Ian again you have totry and change the parameters until you get the results you want....

You just don't get it do you.. My experiment was simple and eliminated any other methods of heat transfer, yours adds all sorts of variables and you think it proves you are correct.. It doesn't it only shows you can turn milk into butter if you churn it enough.. Damn dude it's not that hard.. You are supposed to be so smart.. WTH??

We tried this before and you did the same things... You posted a thought experiment by some ding-dong luke-warmer and when it was shown flawed you altered the parameters in every post.. Seriously man, get a grip.. You're wrong.. Sorry but you just are man..

You cannot justify back-radiation, but hey no biggie neither can they... Get over it, you were had..

what was your point? you never said what your point was. the sphere would obviously be hotter between the two stars, right? it is always taking in radiation, whereas if it was only next to one star it would have a 'night time' to lose energy. again, what is your point?

My point was clear but you had to read the entire post, not pick out a fragment and go with it. Your pointing out something out of context, and then asking me what my point was. In its context it was clear, but taken out of the whole it wasn't...

Here it is again. Read it if you want to understand the point, if you can't be bothered to read it fully, then the clarification is your fault not mine...

"Two stars equal in heat and energy in a perfect vacum (meaning absolute zero ambient temps etc and so on). Facing one another far enough away to avoid any other energy transfer but radiation. The distance negates any surface heat transfer to one another, the only energy transfer is by radiation.. Keep up admiral socks...

Now do they heat one another to any noticeable measurement? No.. Why? Because they are in equilibrium with one another. No energy gained because they negate one another. That is what equilibrium is. Remember black-body radiation? How does that exist if your claims are correct? It couldn't, it wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter...

Now same two equal stars, same parameters save one change. place a rotating ball in the center. perfect rotation, no wobble or variance of any kind, no atmosphere, just a solid spherical mass equal distance from the two stars.

What happens to the sphere? it heats up until it reaches equilibrium with the energy output of the two heat sources, then it stops increasing. It doesn't stop when it matches the temps of the two stars or when it matches the two stars combined output, but heats up until it reaches the temperature the energy out put of the two stars that the distance, parameters and environment will allow.

TADA!!!!! Equilibrium at work..."

now notice the first part explained the experiment and laid the parameters. It was simple. Notice the next part added the sphere and went on.. The point was trying to explain the difference between two equal heat sources in equilibrium with one another and the effect of black-body radiation, versus the same two heat sources interacting with another body at equal distance from each of them, and how the added sphere changes the parameters regarding black-body and equilibrium of the 3 bodies.

The two stars alone are in equilibrium negating any added heat from one another. The environmental parameters made conduction and convection non-factors, making radiation the only transfer method. That being the case and the fact that two bodies in equilibrium do not add any heat but rather remain in equal balance, negates any claims that they can effect noticeable change to each respective temperature.

Adding the sphere to the system at equal distance to the two stars, showed how the system changed. The "equilibrium" would now be different, effected by the third body,the distance between that 3rd body and its twin heat sources as well as distance. Rotation insured that the sphere would be in as near constant sunlight as allowable, negating any day/night complexities to confound the concept needlessly.

The last full paragraph I wrote you responded to, actually explained the entire thing... I underlined it above.. Now that its clarified further, reading what came before it by the numan sock brigade should make the entire clear...

Just TRY and read what you are attacking first..

I still dont understand your point. are you saying that the two stars will be an infintesimal amount cooler because of the radiation from the sphere which goes out into space rather than back at the stars?

 

[gslack]

what was your point? you never said what your point was. the sphere would obviously be hotter between the two stars, right? it is always taking in radiation, whereas if it was only next to one star it would have a 'night time' to lose energy. again, what is your point?

My point was clear but you had to read the entire post, not pick out a fragment and go with it. Your pointing out something out of context, and then asking me what my point was. In its context it was clear, but taken out of the whole it wasn't...

Here it is again. Read it if you want to understand the point, if you can't be bothered to read it fully, then the clarification is your fault not mine...

"Two stars equal in heat and energy in a perfect vacum (meaning absolute zero ambient temps etc and so on). Facing one another far enough away to avoid any other energy transfer but radiation. The distance negates any surface heat transfer to one another, the only energy transfer is by radiation.. Keep up admiral socks...

Now do they heat one another to any noticeable measurement? No.. Why? Because they are in equilibrium with one another. No energy gained because they negate one another. That is what equilibrium is. Remember black-body radiation? How does that exist if your claims are correct? It couldn't, it wouldn't, and there is the crux of the matter...

Now same two equal stars, same parameters save one change. place a rotating ball in the center. perfect rotation, no wobble or variance of any kind, no atmosphere, just a solid spherical mass equal distance from the two stars.

What happens to the sphere? it heats up until it reaches equilibrium with the energy output of the two heat sources, then it stops increasing. It doesn't stop when it matches the temps of the two stars or when it matches the two stars combined output, but heats up until it reaches the temperature the energy out put of the two stars that the distance, parameters and environment will allow.

TADA!!!!! Equilibrium at work..."

now notice the first part explained the experiment and laid the parameters. It was simple. Notice the next part added the sphere and went on.. The point was trying to explain the difference between two equal heat sources in equilibrium with one another and the effect of black-body radiation, versus the same two heat sources interacting with another body at equal distance from each of them, and how the added sphere changes the parameters regarding black-body and equilibrium of the 3 bodies.

The two stars alone are in equilibrium negating any added heat from one another. The environmental parameters made conduction and convection non-factors, making radiation the only transfer method. That being the case and the fact that two bodies in equilibrium do not add any heat but rather remain in equal balance, negates any claims that they can effect noticeable change to each respective temperature.

Adding the sphere to the system at equal distance to the two stars, showed how the system changed. The "equilibrium" would now be different, effected by the third body,the distance between that 3rd body and its twin heat sources as well as distance. Rotation insured that the sphere would be in as near constant sunlight as allowable, negating any day/night complexities to confound the concept needlessly.

The last full paragraph I wrote you responded to, actually explained the entire thing... I underlined it above.. Now that its clarified further, reading what came before it by the numan sock brigade should make the entire clear...

Just TRY and read what you are attacking first..

I still dont understand your point. are you saying that the two stars will be an infintesimal amount cooler because of the radiation from the sphere which goes out into space rather than back at the stars?

Okay Ian, I tried, you would rather be obtuse and respond like a child fine. Your call...

When you can speak in the big boy voice I will treat with respect again..

Same old Ian playing sincere and when challenged turns into a douchebag. Okay time wasted, lesson learned..

 

[IanC]

Okay Ian, I tried, you would rather be obtuse and respond like a child fine. Your call...

When you can speak in the big boy voice I will treat with respect again..

Same old Ian playing sincere and when challenged turns into a douchebag. Okay time wasted, lesson learned..

I must admit I feel the same way when I try to dialogue with you. you make an incomprehensible statement and then get pissed off when nobody understands what you are trying to say.

 

[Saigon]

I must admit I feel the same way when I try to dialogue with you. you make an incomprehensible statement and then get pissed off when nobody understands what you are trying to say.

I totally agree.

It's genuinely difficult to respond to comments where most of the post is:

We tried this before and you did the same things... You posted a thought experiment by some ding-dong luke-warmer and when it was shown flawed you altered the parameters in every post.. Seriously man, get a grip.. You're wrong.. Sorry but you just are man..

There is just nothing there worth responding to.

As I said earlier, Gslack, this is not about what you think or believe, it's about posting comments that actually make sense.

 

[IanC]

Either you don't know the distinction, or you don't understand there is one, either way it's misleading and inaccurate to make that claim... The 2nd law is an absolute law in the macroscopic. In the micro and sub levels it is used as a statistical law because that's the only way they can use it, due to the fact they can't actually see, the processes only their effects. They use it because they just can't explain what goes on not because it allows two-way energy flow...

Now please go and make that miracle machine that shows this process in action... I'd like to have infinite energy from a finite source....

the second law is not absolute, just statistically probable to the point of absurdity. can you prove otherwise?

in the microscopic world, the possible range of range of radiation wavelengths is large. a molecule, atom, ion or electron may at anytime receive a photon of higher energy than is the statistical norm for the temperature, leading to a fluxuation at that locale. if everything only received average or less than average packets of energy then the temperature would have to be decreasing.

can you point out anyone who has claimed a perpetual motion machine? until you can why dont you let that strawman take a rest.

Don't have to Ian, physicist already have, the world proves it all the time.

Again you are taking the statistical mechanics interpretation used expressly FOR that field, and trying to equate it to situations and parameters where it was not intended.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Derivation from statistical mechanics

Further information: H-theorem
Due to Loschmidt's paradox, derivations the Second Law have to make an assumption regarding the past, namely that the system is uncorrelated at some time in the past; this allows for simple probabilistic treatment. This assumption is usually thought as a boundary condition, and thus the second Law is ultimately a consequence of the initial conditions somewhere in the past, probably at the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), though other scenarios have also been suggested.[24][25][26]

Given these assumptions, in statistical mechanics, the Second Law is not a postulate, rather it is a consequence of the fundamental postulate, also known as the equal prior probability postulate, so long as one is clear that simple probability arguments are applied only to the future, while for the past there are auxiliary sources of information which tell us that it was low entropy[citation needed]. The first part of the second law, which states that the entropy of a thermally isolated system can only increase is a trivial consequence of the equal prior probability postulate, if we restrict the notion of the entropy to systems in thermal equilibrium.

Here's the difference in the two...

Clausius statement
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.[9] 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.[10]
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.

[edit]Kelvin statement
Lord Kelvin expressed the second law as
It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.[11]

[edit]Principle of Carathéodory
Constantin Carathéodory formulated thermodynamics on a purely mathematical axiomatic foundation. His statement of the second law is known as the Principle of Carathéodory, which may be formulated as follows:[12]
In every neighborhood of any state S of an adiabatically isolated system there are states inaccessible from S.[13]

now all those explanations of the second law and none of them not one specifies it as a "statistical" law.. Why? Because they deal with what they can see and experience directly in the real world. The "statistical" interpretation deals with what they cannot see or directly experience in the real world.

Again one is actual and based on real experience, the other is speculation based on mathematical concepts that attempt to explain what they cannot.

You are confusing the two or unaware there is a distinction. Either way, when your theories and mathematical equations conflict with what you can see and experience, it's time to check your math or concepts..

Quantum theory doesn't explain everything, even those working in the field admit this freely. It does answer a lot, but not enough to throw out the natural laws. String theory, and others are attempts to cover these issues in the hopes of one universal theory encompassing quantum and macro. None of these are the full answer yet either.

That's the difference between learning the math, and learning to think...They are not mutually exclusive..

the whole argument against 'back radiation' falls apart simply because you cannot separate the 'back radiation' from the 'forward radiation'. they are both happening continuously and are both part of the same energy transfer, which is net outflow to space. the SLoT also does not forbid changes in equilibrium temperatures at intermediate stages along the way from input to output. you 'back radiation' deniers jump from being too literal, to too general, and confuse one aspect with another. the Sun heats the surface. the atmosphere only affects the radiation loss to space. 'back radiation' only warms the surface if the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. anybody up for a Chinook?

 

[IanC]

I must admit I feel the same way when I try to dialogue with you. you make an incomprehensible statement and then get pissed off when nobody understands what you are trying to say.

I totally agree.

It's genuinely difficult to respond to comments where most of the post is:

We tried this before and you did the same things... You posted a thought experiment by some ding-dong luke-warmer and when it was shown flawed you altered the parameters in every post.. Seriously man, get a grip.. You're wrong.. Sorry but you just are man..

There is just nothing there worth responding to.

As I said earlier, Gslack, this is not about what you think or believe, it's about posting comments that actually make sense.

I dont know the origin of this quote but I think it may be applicable when trying to deal with gslack-

"Some research shows that friends and spouses have an average IQ difference of 12 points, that for IQ differences less than 20 points a reciprocal intellectual relationship is the rule, for IQ differences between 20-30 points the intellectual relationship tends to be one way, and that IQ differences greater than 30 points tend to create real barriers to communication."

 

[SSDD]

Isn't it obvious that the ersatz verbiage above is the output of a computer chatterbot?

It's no better than similar non-sequiturs I remember from primitive Turing machine prototypes from the early 1960's !!
.[/QUOTE]

The irony literally drips....instead of backing up your claims with something like actual observed, measurable evidence, you drizzle the board with your own "erstaz verbiage".

 

[SSDD]

the laws of thermodynamics are statistical descriptions of the consequences of physical mechanisms. you cannot point out which physical mechanisms control the prohibition of radiation while the textbook descriptions of radiation disagree with your 'variation'.

So you keep repeating...but the statement of the second law of thermodynamics remains a statement made in absolute terms. Show me, in the statment where two way energy flow might happen.

I am not appealing to complexity.

Of course you are. The statement of the second law doesn't support your claims about it so you dive into an imaginary world of mathematical models and computer output trying to make the second law say something that it simply doesn't. If you can't work within the statement of the second law, then you have no actual argument...what you have is fabrication.

back to earthly things. once the sun has heated up the surface, and the atmosphere, charged the heatsinks, put evapotranspiration into effect, thermals, etc, etc and everything is in equilibrium, mankind came along and added CO2 which slightly changed one part of the calculation,

The earth system has never and will never be in equilibrium...another patently false claim on your part. You make these statements as if they were fact when they aren't even close. Maybe you believe them, or maybe you just never think very deeply into what you are going to say, but saying it doesn't make it true and making claims like the earth system has ever been in equilibrium really puts you solidly into the realm of the true cranks.

Our CO2 hasn't changed the temperature of the planet beyond that which it's addition can be calculated via the ideal gas laws...in other words, virtually none and nonewhatsoever in its fictitious role as a so called greenhouse gas.

which obviously must change all the other pieces of the equilibrium.

Since there never was any equilibrium, your statement is meaningless. You may as well be typing random symbols.

we are arguing about the radiative process near the surface.

As soon as radiation leaves the surface of the earth..it is in a higher state of entropy than it was...it can't go back.

temperature differentials between the surface and the immediate air above it are typically small.

It doesn't matter how small the differential is. If there is a differential, there is one way gross energy flow. Fundamental law of nature. Not avoidable. Not surmountable. Period.

the temp of the air compared to the air a few meters above it are smaller still. the radiation going up only slightly overmatches the radiation coming down.

There is no radiation coming down. One way gross energy flow.

you made a comment that radiation is more effective than conduction or convection. that is absolutely preposterous. why do we use thermos containers and double pane windows? if you mean that all the energy that leaves the earth is by radiation, that is true but convection, conduction and latent heat from phase change are the heavy lifters from the surface to the upper atmosphere.

I believe you must know that I was talking about heat movement from the surface to the upper atmosphere. Why deliberately misconstrue my statement? Do I have to explain and disect every thought in the most minute excruciating detail....perhaps write in crayon? Are you going to argue that radiation doesn't move enrgy into the upper atmosphere much faster than convection and conduction?

 

[SSDD]

why do your comments never seem to have a point?

Why do you never seem to be able to grasp the point?

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly.

You write the fantasy...then destroy the fantasy with the truth which you don't seem to be able to see and then in the next post revert to the fantasy.

The first bolded statement is the fantasy....the second bolded statement is the truth. LOSING LESS HEAT IS NOT ADDING TO EACH OTHER"S HEAT. It is such a simple, and unavoidable bit of information...how is it that you can't see it. Loosing less heat is in no way, and by any definition..warming or adding heat. It is cooling no matter how you slice it dice it or julienne it. It is what the second law predicts. There is no warming....

THERE IS ONLY COOLING ... MOVING TOWARDS MORE ENTROPY .... FOR EVER AND EVER ..... AMEN.

 

[SSDD]

the second law is not absolute, just statistically probable to the point of absurdity. can you prove otherwise?

Then take just a moment Ian and try to explain to me, in rational terms why, if the second law is not absolute....in the first place, why it remains a law...and in the second place why it is written in terms that can't be construed in any other terms than absolute.

can you point out anyone who has claimed a perpetual motion machine? until you can why dont you let that strawman take a rest.

If you have two way energy flow then you have energy moving from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy...that is the basis for perpetual motion...any energy that was at a state of higher entropy that moves back to its lower entropy source creates more energy in the lower entropy souce thus increasing its output with the EXCESS ENERGY....ie PERPETUAL MOTION..

Energy flow is a one way street...more entropy to less entropy...none is excused...none is exempt....it can't go back...

 

[SSDD]

the whole argument against 'back radiation' falls apart simply because you cannot separate the 'back radiation' from the 'forward radiation'. they are both happening continuously and are both part of the same energy transfer, which is net outflow to space.

There is no backradiation. Once the radiation leaves the surface of the earth it enters a state of higher entropy...going back..even the smallest fraction of a joule would mean spontaneously returning to a state of lower entropy...can't happen...won't happen...doesn't happen...no ecepctions.....no deviations....ever.

 

[polarbear]

why do your comments never seem to have a point?

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.

Your comment does not have a point either.
Between the lumps of a pile of coal the combustion rate is higher than on the outside. Inside there is more fuel at the combustion temperature and the air is drawn through narrower channels which acts like a blow torch where fuel and oxidant is well mixed.

You might as well argue that a candle flame does not have enough "back radiation" and a blow torch does.

 

[gslack]

I must admit I feel the same way when I try to dialogue with you. you make an incomprehensible statement and then get pissed off when nobody understands what you are trying to say.

I totally agree.

It's genuinely difficult to respond to comments where most of the post is:

We tried this before and you did the same things... You posted a thought experiment by some ding-dong luke-warmer and when it was shown flawed you altered the parameters in every post.. Seriously man, get a grip.. You're wrong.. Sorry but you just are man..

There is just nothing there worth responding to.

As I said earlier, Gslack, this is not about what you think or believe, it's about posting comments that actually make sense.

Thanks Iansock... Now away with your stench!

 

[gslack]

the second law is not absolute, just statistically probable to the point of absurdity. can you prove otherwise?

in the microscopic world, the possible range of range of radiation wavelengths is large. a molecule, atom, ion or electron may at anytime receive a photon of higher energy than is the statistical norm for the temperature, leading to a fluxuation at that locale. if everything only received average or less than average packets of energy then the temperature would have to be decreasing.

can you point out anyone who has claimed a perpetual motion machine? until you can why dont you let that strawman take a rest.

Don't have to Ian, physicist already have, the world proves it all the time.

Again you are taking the statistical mechanics interpretation used expressly FOR that field, and trying to equate it to situations and parameters where it was not intended.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Derivation from statistical mechanics

Further information: H-theorem
Due to Loschmidt's paradox, derivations the Second Law have to make an assumption regarding the past, namely that the system is uncorrelated at some time in the past; this allows for simple probabilistic treatment. This assumption is usually thought as a boundary condition, and thus the second Law is ultimately a consequence of the initial conditions somewhere in the past, probably at the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), though other scenarios have also been suggested.[24][25][26]

Given these assumptions, in statistical mechanics, the Second Law is not a postulate, rather it is a consequence of the fundamental postulate, also known as the equal prior probability postulate, so long as one is clear that simple probability arguments are applied only to the future, while for the past there are auxiliary sources of information which tell us that it was low entropy[citation needed]. The first part of the second law, which states that the entropy of a thermally isolated system can only increase is a trivial consequence of the equal prior probability postulate, if we restrict the notion of the entropy to systems in thermal equilibrium.

Here's the difference in the two...

Clausius statement
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.[9] 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.[10]
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.

[edit]Kelvin statement
Lord Kelvin expressed the second law as
It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.[11]

[edit]Principle of Carathéodory
Constantin Carathéodory formulated thermodynamics on a purely mathematical axiomatic foundation. His statement of the second law is known as the Principle of Carathéodory, which may be formulated as follows:[12]
In every neighborhood of any state S of an adiabatically isolated system there are states inaccessible from S.[13]

now all those explanations of the second law and none of them not one specifies it as a "statistical" law.. Why? Because they deal with what they can see and experience directly in the real world. The "statistical" interpretation deals with what they cannot see or directly experience in the real world.

Again one is actual and based on real experience, the other is speculation based on mathematical concepts that attempt to explain what they cannot.

You are confusing the two or unaware there is a distinction. Either way, when your theories and mathematical equations conflict with what you can see and experience, it's time to check your math or concepts..

Quantum theory doesn't explain everything, even those working in the field admit this freely. It does answer a lot, but not enough to throw out the natural laws. String theory, and others are attempts to cover these issues in the hopes of one universal theory encompassing quantum and macro. None of these are the full answer yet either.

That's the difference between learning the math, and learning to think...They are not mutually exclusive..

the whole argument against 'back radiation' falls apart simply because you cannot separate the 'back radiation' from the 'forward radiation'. they are both happening continuously and are both part of the same energy transfer, which is net outflow to space. the SLoT also does not forbid changes in equilibrium temperatures at intermediate stages along the way from input to output. you 'back radiation' deniers jump from being too literal, to too general, and confuse one aspect with another. the Sun heats the surface. the atmosphere only affects the radiation loss to space. 'back radiation' only warms the surface if the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. anybody up for a Chinook?

Ian, I know when you are faced with a flaw in your belief system.. You go from mr. intelligent to utter buffoon... It's not about you understanding it, it's about you being too much of a chickenshit to man up and own your mistakes or question your beliefs..

All of your big talk, all of your droning on and on about science, and the pretense of knowledge,and in the end you are a cowardly idiot..

Some time you are going to have to decide if your going to play genius or play dumbass on here. The back and forth nonsense just won't cut it anymore. One minute your citing quantum mechanics concepts, they next you're asking people to explain a simple logic problem over and again and still refusing to get it.. You play this game too often troll.

So which is it? Are you smart enough to think on this or just regurgitating what you find online? Ya know what I think... If you can't figure out a written logical question, or follow more than a paragraph or two in a thought experiment, you're an imbecile with a pre-calculus text book and a lot of google time...

 

[polarbear]

Don't have to Ian, physicist already have, the world proves it all the time.

Again you are taking the statistical mechanics interpretation used expressly FOR that field, and trying to equate it to situations and parameters where it was not intended.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Derivation from statistical mechanics

Further information: H-theorem
Due to Loschmidt's paradox, derivations the Second Law have to make an assumption regarding the past, namely that the system is uncorrelated at some time in the past; this allows for simple probabilistic treatment. This assumption is usually thought as a boundary condition, and thus the second Law is ultimately a consequence of the initial conditions somewhere in the past, probably at the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), though other scenarios have also been suggested.[24][25][26]

Given these assumptions, in statistical mechanics, the Second Law is not a postulate, rather it is a consequence of the fundamental postulate, also known as the equal prior probability postulate, so long as one is clear that simple probability arguments are applied only to the future, while for the past there are auxiliary sources of information which tell us that it was low entropy[citation needed]. The first part of the second law, which states that the entropy of a thermally isolated system can only increase is a trivial consequence of the equal prior probability postulate, if we restrict the notion of the entropy to systems in thermal equilibrium.

Here's the difference in the two...


now all those explanations of the second law and none of them not one specifies it as a "statistical" law.. Why? Because they deal with what they can see and experience directly in the real world. The "statistical" interpretation deals with what they cannot see or directly experience in the real world.

Again one is actual and based on real experience, the other is speculation based on mathematical concepts that attempt to explain what they cannot.

You are confusing the two or unaware there is a distinction. Either way, when your theories and mathematical equations conflict with what you can see and experience, it's time to check your math or concepts..

Quantum theory doesn't explain everything, even those working in the field admit this freely. It does answer a lot, but not enough to throw out the natural laws. String theory, and others are attempts to cover these issues in the hopes of one universal theory encompassing quantum and macro. None of these are the full answer yet either.

That's the difference between learning the math, and learning to think...They are not mutually exclusive..

the whole argument against 'back radiation' falls apart simply because you cannot separate the 'back radiation' from the 'forward radiation'. they are both happening continuously and are both part of the same energy transfer, which is net outflow to space. the SLoT also does not forbid changes in equilibrium temperatures at intermediate stages along the way from input to output. you 'back radiation' deniers jump from being too literal, to too general, and confuse one aspect with another. the Sun heats the surface. the atmosphere only affects the radiation loss to space. 'back radiation' only warms the surface if the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. anybody up for a Chinook?

Ian, I know when you are faced with a flaw in your belief system.. You go from mr. intelligent to utter buffoon... It's not about you understanding it, it's about you being too much of a chickenshit to man up and own your mistakes or question your beliefs..

All of your big talk, all of your droning on and on about science, and the pretense of knowledge,and in the end you are a cowardly idiot..

Some time you are going to have to decide if your going to play genius or play dumbass on here. The back and forth nonsense just won't cut it anymore. One minute your citing quantum mechanics concepts, they next you're asking people to explain a simple logic problem over and again and still refusing to get it.. You play this game too often troll.

So which is it? Are you smart enough to think on this or just regurgitating what you find online? Ya know what I think... If you can't figure out a written logical question, or follow more than a paragraph or two in a thought experiment, you're an imbecile with a pre-calculus text book and a lot of google time...

And in the process he con-f(uck)-uses the combustion rate and fuel oxidant mixture with "back-radiation"

I was (mistakenly) hoping he would offer his knowledge of quantum mechanics to comment on this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7119346
Snell`s law:

Light speed in a vacuum = 3*10^5 km/ s , in glass it is 2* 10^5 km/s
The frequency, the wavelength and the energy of the mass-less photons stay the same even though light travels only at 2/3 of c through glass
So what happened ?
If f= velocity / wavelength and the velocity is only 2/3 rd. in the glass did the wavelength get shorter so that the equation remains valid ?
That can`t be else the photons just gained a shitload of energy just as soon as they encountered the glass.
You are the physics expert, so you tell me...!
If photons had a mass then m *50 000 000 000 km^2 / s ^2 energy would have gone missing, like as in "absorbed"..???..."heating up the glass"..??
Photons don`t have a mass and don`t transfer "thermal energy" to the glass, no energy was "absorbed" because photons don`t behave like the silly little bullets that you all use in your stupid "back radiation" examples.
They obey wave mechanic and for you to get a specific energy flux, be that light or any other electromagnetic wave you have to increase the square meters by the square of the distance to get the same photon energy flux in watts per m^2 , .....
...or wait in seconds by the square of the distance longer to get the same same number of watt seconds energy, as you would get from a closer light source .
It`s called the "Poynting factor"

 

[gslack]

I must admit I feel the same way when I try to dialogue with you. you make an incomprehensible statement and then get pissed off when nobody understands what you are trying to say.

I totally agree.

It's genuinely difficult to respond to comments where most of the post is:



There is just nothing there worth responding to.

As I said earlier, Gslack, this is not about what you think or believe, it's about posting comments that actually make sense.

I dont know the origin of this quote but I think it may be applicable when trying to deal with gslack-

"Some research shows that friends and spouses have an average IQ difference of 12 points, that for IQ differences less than 20 points a reciprocal intellectual relationship is the rule, for IQ differences between 20-30 points the intellectual relationship tends to be one way, and that IQ differences greater than 30 points tend to create real barriers to communication."

You should know who said it you responded to him tard... LOL, YOU DID IAN!!!!

ROFL couldn't answer for your fuck up with the second law so you had to divert and confound didn't you... Awww so sad... Then you couldn't follow a simple logic experiment and so you suddenly can't understand english... So then you go get Mr.socko and try the weak game... Pathetic...

Next time save me the trouble and just say you don't understand this from the start. You can't google it, you don't get it....

 

[polarbear]

I totally agree.

It's genuinely difficult to respond to comments where most of the post is:



There is just nothing there worth responding to.

As I said earlier, Gslack, this is not about what you think or believe, it's about posting comments that actually make sense.

I dont know the origin of this quote but I think it may be applicable when trying to deal with gslack-

"Some research shows that friends and spouses have an average IQ difference of 12 points, that for IQ differences less than 20 points a reciprocal intellectual relationship is the rule, for IQ differences between 20-30 points the intellectual relationship tends to be one way, and that IQ differences greater than 30 points tend to create real barriers to communication."

You should know who said it you responded to him tard... LOL, YOU DID IAN!!!!

ROFL couldn't answer for your fuck up with the second law so you had to divert and confound didn't you... Awww so sad... Then you couldn't follow a simple logic experiment and so you suddenly can't understand english... So then you go get Mr.socko and try the weak game... Pathetic...

Next time save me the trouble and just say you don't understand this from the start. You can't google it, you don't get it....

Notice that all they have to "offer" are dumb comments when it`s pointed out that heat sink fins don`t "back-radiate" and get hotter.
On some satellites there is serious power going through power transistors.
There are no cooling fans because in a vacuum they are useless. And every ounce of excess weight is avoided.
Heat sinks would be removed for that reason alone, but they are not removed,...for a good reason !
Every satellite component is pre-flight tested in vacuum chambers and satellite enclosures are not at atmospheric pressure.
They are so tightly packed with electronic components that should fry each other with their own "back-radiation".
And now he cites a coal fire as an example of "back-radiation"..:

 

[polarbear]

why do your comments never seem to have a point?

a common example of how two heat sources add to each other is two briquets, or lumps of coal or charcoal embers in a campfire will be more red on the coincident sides than the outward sides because they are losing less heat when radiating towards a warmer object than to the cooler outside that doesnt radiate back as strongly. and yes I realize there are confounding factors but that doesnt negate the radiation angle.

Since you brought that up let me point out something that everybody who heated steel or welds can observe every time they do:

As you can see the cooler steel cools down the coal even where it is not in direct contact.
So where is that "back-radiation" from a colder object to a hotter one that you insist on ?
The exact opposite is happening not just here...it`s also happening if you use an arc welder for welding or heating with graphite rods.
The same thing is also happening with a solar fridge that SSDD mentioned and got laughed at + insulted by the numan moron club.
Go find a blacksmith and see for yourself !

 

[mamooth]

So, the cultists here are still adamant about rejecting the past century of physics in favor of their new groundbreaking magic vanishing photon theories. No problem. I can even help them out with some new ideas.

Perhaps they can somehow use this "Electric Universe" theory of alternate physics to justify their own vision of a world of intelligent molecules.

The Electric Sky book

Perhaps they can fit Rossi's "Energy Catalyzer" cold fusion device into it somehow.

TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat - NyTeknik

Or, perhaps they can even work Time Cube cosmology into it.

Time Cube

Get crackin', cultists! If you can fit all 3 into your worldview, that's like a GrandUnifiedTheory, which would be a Nobel Prize for sure!

 

[mamooth]

Okay junior you just showed your immaturity... Nice work, keep it up.. Lying about our claims and editing our posts will not help you here...

Awwwww, is the crank crying because I flung his shit back in his face? Why yes, he is.

It's pretty simple. If you'll stop lying about us supposedly claiming perpetual motion machines exist, and I'll stop flinging your lies back in your face.