Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[Wuwei]

Because we don't know..and the likelihood of you being the one to accurately describe what hundreds of years of physics has yet to scratch the surface of is pretty slim. your explanation didn't even begin to describe why energy transfers, much less the fundamental mechanism for how...all you said was that energy moves...we already know that.

But again...it is interesting to see what passes for a description of the fundamental mechanism of energy movement in your mind...it is always interesting to see how little people who fancy themselves as intelligent actually know.

Your belief that science understands the underlying mechanism of energy exchange is just one more example of you not being able to differentiate between fact and fiction.

You are still stalling. What you are saying is that you don't know or accept the science. If you don't think it is the underlying mechanism. Say why.

 

[SSDD]

Years ago when I was learning the basics of fiber-optic transmission we applied a laser to each end of the 1 mile long spool, at the same frequency, and measured the output of the ends. There was a drop of about 67% of the optical power. When a single laser was used it emitted 94% of the input optical power.

When we used a higher transmission power on one end, the lower transmission power dropped by 83% while the higher power dropped by 51%. using 1.3 and 1.9 lasers (offset wave lengths) resulted in the same losses. (the experiment was deigned to show that bi-directional communications in fiber will not function)

Either the photons collided and caused scattering attenuation or there is still a very low understanding of photon energy process. Given that the QAM transmission was totally destroyed, for either end, its a good bet that it is a collision related event.

QM theory shown extremely questionable by observable experiment. Even if all matter radiates in all directions the temperature (power-output) of the matter, matters. The energy of a colder object reaching the other hotter object is also very questionable.

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Fiber optics do constrain light by internal reflection, although not perfectly. There is obviously a chance that two photons hitting the fiber optic matter simultaneously will result in a different outcome than simple reflection.

Someone here posted up an interesting experiment showing two laser beams coming off a surface as one reasonably coherent stream of light that was a different colour than the original two lasers.

Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what? General principles are seldom seen in reality without confounding factors obscuring them..

This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE and we are woefully ignorant of the process/interactions. This general principal of QM is shown incorrect but you want to claim that it has no effect... the babbling and going round in circles is pointless.

"Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what?"

This is priceless...^^^^^ Now how a photon does or does not react is of no consequence....

I do love to watch him go on as if he actually knew what these theoretical particles were actually doing, and what the do and don't do...When you talk to warmers, and luke warmers it doesn't take long before you see that as a group, they really aren't able to differentiate between what is real and what is not...referring to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models as if they were real....not much different than referring to the easter bunny, and fairies, and dragons as if they were real and going on about what they are up to in the world.. it is priceless....f'ing sad...but priceless none the less.

 

[SSDD]

You are still stalling. What you are saying is that you don't know or accept the science. If you don't think it is the underlying mechanism. Say why.

I am not stalling...I am perfectly willing to admit what science knows and what it doesn't know...I spend a great deal of time educating myself on that very thing so that I can recognize and differentiate fact from fiction. If you actually believe that you described the underlying, fundamental mechanism that drives energy exchange then you are far less informed than I thought you were.

 

[Wuwei]

You are still stalling. What you are saying is that you don't know or accept the science. If you don't think it is the underlying mechanism. Say why.

I am not stalling...I am perfectly willing to admit what science knows and what it doesn't know...I spend a great deal of time educating myself on that very thing so that I can recognize and differentiate fact from fiction. If you actually believe that you described the underlying, fundamental mechanism that drives energy exchange then you are far less informed than I thought you were.

Still stalling. If you think I did not describe the underlying mechanism which is has been demonstrated time and again, then what do you think is wrong with the underlying mechanism description?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He has never addressed this issue in the past, I doubt that he will now. Except perhaps to deny the atomic scale world.

Yes, he is still afraid to address it. But no doubt he is searching the web with some key words.

If he ever posts another source, I doubt he will, what percentage of it will actually refute his claims?
50%, 75%, more?

 

[Wuwei]

If he ever posts another source, I doubt he will, what percentage of it will actually refute his claims?
50%, 75%, more?

My guess is 100% that he will post one of his many non sequiturs.

 

[SSDD]

You are still stalling. What you are saying is that you don't know or accept the science. If you don't think it is the underlying mechanism. Say why.

I am not stalling...I am perfectly willing to admit what science knows and what it doesn't know...I spend a great deal of time educating myself on that very thing so that I can recognize and differentiate fact from fiction. If you actually believe that you described the underlying, fundamental mechanism that drives energy exchange then you are far less informed than I thought you were.

Still stalling. If you think I did not describe the underlying mechanism which is has been demonstrated time and again, then what do you think is wrong with the underlying mechanism description?

The petulant child begins to respond to admonishment with ?why?

OK...if you insist on having your errors pointed out to you..

You said that atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths...aside from the fact that all atoms throughout the object are vibrating at a wide spectrum of wavelengths what do you think that tells you?

Any idea why they are vibrating? Any idea why they are vibrating at different wavelengths..any idea what microscopic force causes them to vibrate? Any idea how this vibration is translated into infrared energy? Any idea what force causes the infrared energy to leave the object? The answer to all those questions is no..because those questions speak to the unknown underlying mechanism of energy movement...not to the known fact that energy moves.

Then you went on to state that when they vibrate they must radiate energy? Why? And again, what caused them to vibrate..what causes them to vibrate at different frequencies...what force determines how much energy is emitted?...again, the answer to those questions is no because they speak to the underlying mechanism of energy exchange..not the known fact that energy can emit from objects.

Then you went on to say that there is nothing out side that body that can stop them from vibrating...that is a statement of fiction...because you don't know...becasue you don't know what force causes them to vibrate, and causes them to vibrate at different frequencies...that is your belief, your opinion, your faith..whatever...but not a known fact. Hell, we haven't even got a good look at an atom and you believe you can confidently state what can and can't make them do anything. Get a grip on reality.

So...all you did was tell me that atoms vibrate and that they can emit energy and then went on to give me your opinion about what can and can't have an effect on that energy. You didn't even begin to touch on the unknown, underlying mechanism that causes energy to move...all you did was say that energy moves...we all know that...what we don't know is why or how.

 

[SSDD]

If he ever posts another source, I doubt he will, what percentage of it will actually refute his claims?
50%, 75%, more?

My guess is 100% that he will post one of his many non sequiturs.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Years ago when I was learning the basics of fiber-optic transmission we applied a laser to each end of the 1 mile long spool, at the same frequency, and measured the output of the ends. There was a drop of about 67% of the optical power. When a single laser was used it emitted 94% of the input optical power.

When we used a higher transmission power on one end, the lower transmission power dropped by 83% while the higher power dropped by 51%. using 1.3 and 1.9 lasers (offset wave lengths) resulted in the same losses. (the experiment was deigned to show that bi-directional communications in fiber will not function)

Either the photons collided and caused scattering attenuation or there is still a very low understanding of photon energy process. Given that the QAM transmission was totally destroyed, for either end, its a good bet that it is a collision related event.

QM theory shown extremely questionable by observable experiment. Even if all matter radiates in all directions the temperature (power-output) of the matter, matters. The energy of a colder object reaching the other hotter object is also very questionable.

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Fiber optics do constrain light by internal reflection, although not perfectly. There is obviously a chance that two photons hitting the fiber optic matter simultaneously will result in a different outcome than simple reflection.

Someone here posted up an interesting experiment showing two laser beams coming off a surface as one reasonably coherent stream of light that was a different colour than the original two lasers.

Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what? General principles are seldom seen in reality without confounding factors obscuring them..

This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE and we are woefully ignorant of the process/interactions. This general principal of QM is shown incorrect but you want to claim that it has no effect... the babbling and going round in circles is pointless.

"Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what?"

This is priceless...^^^^^ Now how a photon does or does not react is of no consequence....

This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE

Is that how covailent bonds shield themselves from cooler photons?

 

[IanC]

Years ago when I was learning the basics of fiber-optic transmission we applied a laser to each end of the 1 mile long spool, at the same frequency, and measured the output of the ends. There was a drop of about 67% of the optical power. When a single laser was used it emitted 94% of the input optical power.

When we used a higher transmission power on one end, the lower transmission power dropped by 83% while the higher power dropped by 51%. using 1.3 and 1.9 lasers (offset wave lengths) resulted in the same losses. (the experiment was deigned to show that bi-directional communications in fiber will not function)

Either the photons collided and caused scattering attenuation or there is still a very low understanding of photon energy process. Given that the QAM transmission was totally destroyed, for either end, its a good bet that it is a collision related event.

QM theory shown extremely questionable by observable experiment. Even if all matter radiates in all directions the temperature (power-output) of the matter, matters. The energy of a colder object reaching the other hotter object is also very questionable.

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Fiber optics do constrain light by internal reflection, although not perfectly. There is obviously a chance that two photons hitting the fiber optic matter simultaneously will result in a different outcome than simple reflection.

Someone here posted up an interesting experiment showing two laser beams coming off a surface as one reasonably coherent stream of light that was a different colour than the original two lasers.

Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what? General principles are seldom seen in reality without confounding factors obscuring them..

This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE and we are woefully ignorant of the process/interactions. This general principal of QM is shown incorrect but you want to claim that it has no effect... the babbling and going round in circles is pointless.

"Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what?"

This is priceless...^^^^^ Now how a photon does or does not react is of no consequence....

I do love to watch him go on as if he actually knew what these theoretical particles were actually doing, and what the do and don't do...When you talk to warmers, and luke warmers it doesn't take long before you see that as a group, they really aren't able to differentiate between what is real and what is not...referring to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models as if they were real....not much different than referring to the easter bunny, and fairies, and dragons as if they were real and going on about what they are up to in the world.. it is priceless....f'ing sad...but priceless none the less.

Well, do an experiment. Keep the two lasers and individually measure the intensity drop. Then measure the drops when they are both operating, criss crossing each other. I say the difference will be undetectable. If there is a detectable drop then you must try again but in a vacuum.

There is no way that this sort of experiment hasn't been done but I have no idea where to find it.

Then add the reflecting surface back in and scratch your head on trying to figure out how two different laser beams came together and then left as one beam of a different colour. There is undoubtedly an answer, but it comes from QM not classical physics.

 

[Wuwei]

Internal heat is manifested in random kinetic motion. If you disagree state why.
The motion will be oscillatory in solids since the atoms are bound together. If you disagree state why.
Substances with dipole moments or free charges that are vibrating will emit EM waves. That has been measured many times over the last 100 years or so. If you disagree state why.

Again, what's to stop that from happening.

 

[SSDD]

Again, what's to stop that from happening.

How many times must I say...I don't know...and you don't know...and science doesn't know....we don't understand the underlying mechanism of energy movement..when we do, then perhaps we will know. The second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm..it doesn't say that some energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm but the net must be from warm to cool..it says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm..how difficult is that to understand.

I believe the statement because no observation of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm has ever been made, nor will it ever be made. I am not afraid to acknowledge that there are things...very fundamental things that science does not yet know because I have not deified science into some sort of weird assed religion for myself...I don't see science as all knowing...and as I said, I spend a great deal of time learning what science doesn't know....that allows me to spot bullshit like yours when i see it. when you start making declarations about things that science does not yet know, then the bullshit-O-meter goes off and I know that I am talking to yet another hack who can't differentiate between what is real and what is fiction.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your attempt at describing the mechanism of energy movement was that of a petulant child...rather than simply acknowledge that we don't know, you come up with some half assed description of energy movement...and nothing to do with the actual mechanism...pointing out your error is what adults do with petulant children so that they don't grow up believing that they know things that they don't. Guess your parents dropped the ball with you.

You are still stalling. You still haven't given me a reason why you think this is wrong:

The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (see Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.

You have two molecules one at 10K and one at 236K.

These molecules are in a vacuum and in close proximity to one another..

Each one emits photons relative to their temperature towards the cold of space at 2K.

The photons from the molecule at 236K are moderately energetic and in a very short wave 16-22um

The photons from the other molecule at 10K are extremely low in energy and are in a 10 meter wave length. very low energy.

As gasses go, the photon can only be absorbed by another gas at roughly its same frequency. The colder photon will pass through warmer molecule giving it no effect as will the warmer pass through the colder because they are grey bodies. Without absorption and molecular collisions neither gas will warm.

As solids go (black bodies), both will again radiate in wavelengths and excitement relative to their temperatures. The cooler molecule will throw out 1 photon to the warmer molecules 2,000 (temperature/excitement level). These photons will have very little power from the cooler molecule and 2,000 times more power in each from the warmer molecule. (wave propagation theory)

A cooler object can not warm a warmer object by simple observation of the theoretical process.

A colder objects emitted energy is unable to influence the warmer molecule simply because the output and excitement of the outgoing photons can not overcome the warmer objects output. This is why "reflection" in fiber optics might be important.

Again, this is all theoretical. No observations of WHY have been documented. But this is a thing that most radio, fiber-optic and microwave engineering people know and deal with every day. They observe the problems and deal with them.. And sometimes the fix makes absolutely no sense at all..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Years ago when I was learning the basics of fiber-optic transmission we applied a laser to each end of the 1 mile long spool, at the same frequency, and measured the output of the ends. There was a drop of about 67% of the optical power. When a single laser was used it emitted 94% of the input optical power.

When we used a higher transmission power on one end, the lower transmission power dropped by 83% while the higher power dropped by 51%. using 1.3 and 1.9 lasers (offset wave lengths) resulted in the same losses. (the experiment was deigned to show that bi-directional communications in fiber will not function)

Either the photons collided and caused scattering attenuation or there is still a very low understanding of photon energy process. Given that the QAM transmission was totally destroyed, for either end, its a good bet that it is a collision related event.

QM theory shown extremely questionable by observable experiment. Even if all matter radiates in all directions the temperature (power-output) of the matter, matters. The energy of a colder object reaching the other hotter object is also very questionable.

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Fiber optics do constrain light by internal reflection, although not perfectly. There is obviously a chance that two photons hitting the fiber optic matter simultaneously will result in a different outcome than simple reflection.

Someone here posted up an interesting experiment showing two laser beams coming off a surface as one reasonably coherent stream of light that was a different colour than the original two lasers.

Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what? General principles are seldom seen in reality without confounding factors obscuring them..

This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE and we are woefully ignorant of the process/interactions. This general principal of QM is shown incorrect but you want to claim that it has no effect... the babbling and going round in circles is pointless.

"Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what?"

This is priceless...^^^^^ Now how a photon does or does not react is of no consequence....

This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE

Is that how covailent bonds shield themselves from cooler photons?

Can gravity bend the path of a photon?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Years ago when I was learning the basics of fiber-optic transmission we applied a laser to each end of the 1 mile long spool, at the same frequency, and measured the output of the ends. There was a drop of about 67% of the optical power. When a single laser was used it emitted 94% of the input optical power.

When we used a higher transmission power on one end, the lower transmission power dropped by 83% while the higher power dropped by 51%. using 1.3 and 1.9 lasers (offset wave lengths) resulted in the same losses. (the experiment was deigned to show that bi-directional communications in fiber will not function)

Either the photons collided and caused scattering attenuation or there is still a very low understanding of photon energy process. Given that the QAM transmission was totally destroyed, for either end, its a good bet that it is a collision related event.

QM theory shown extremely questionable by observable experiment. Even if all matter radiates in all directions the temperature (power-output) of the matter, matters. The energy of a colder object reaching the other hotter object is also very questionable.

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Fiber optics do constrain light by internal reflection, although not perfectly. There is obviously a chance that two photons hitting the fiber optic matter simultaneously will result in a different outcome than simple reflection.

Someone here posted up an interesting experiment showing two laser beams coming off a surface as one reasonably coherent stream of light that was a different colour than the original two lasers.

Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what? General principles are seldom seen in reality without confounding factors obscuring them..

This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE and we are woefully ignorant of the process/interactions. This general principal of QM is shown incorrect but you want to claim that it has no effect... the babbling and going round in circles is pointless.

"Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what?"

This is priceless...^^^^^ Now how a photon does or does not react is of no consequence....

This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE

Is that how covailent bonds shield themselves from cooler photons?

Can gravity bend the path of a photon?

That's the current theory.

 

[Wuwei]

That's the current theory.

It was also directly observed.

 

[Wuwei]

You have two molecules one at 10K and one at 236K.

You need many molecules in a substance to define temperature. A single molecule cannot ever define temperature. That makes the rest of your post moot.

 

[Wuwei]

Again, what's to stop that from happening.

How many times must I say...I don't know...and you don't know...and science doesn't know....we don't understand the underlying mechanism of energy movement..when we do, then perhaps we will know. The second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm..it doesn't say that some energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm but the net must be from warm to cool..it says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm..how difficult is that to understand.

I believe the statement because no observation of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm has ever been made, nor will it ever be made. I am not afraid to acknowledge that there are things...very fundamental things that science does not yet know because I have not deified science into some sort of weird assed religion for myself...I don't see science as all knowing...and as I said, I spend a great deal of time learning what science doesn't know....that allows me to spot bullshit like yours when i see it. when you start making declarations about things that science does not yet know, then the bullshit-O-meter goes off and I know that I am talking to yet another hack who can't differentiate between what is real and what is fiction.

Again, you are letting your anger and frustration get the best of you.

OK. You admit that you don't know how radiation can be stopped by hotter bodies. But vibrating charges have been observed to radiate time and again. Simple science covers that in detail. But science has no theory on how a distant warmer body could possibly stop radiation. However radiation exchange is consistent with the second law. So it is an obvious deduction that radiation exchange is the only viable mechanism of the behavior of radiant energy in the SLoT.

Just because you can't see or imagine something does not mean it doesn't exist. You hold sacred the words of the SLoT, but you don't understand what those words actually mean. Laws often start by experimental observation that codify the law. But the next important endeavor is to understand the mechanism behind the law through a theory. You have never gotten past the original statement of a law to understand how the law falls in line with the rest of scientific knowledge. That is not science.

 

[IanC]

You have two molecules one at 10K and one at 236K.

You need many molecules in a substance to define temperature. A single molecule cannot ever define temperature. That makes the rest of your post moot.

You beat me to it. These guys are refractory to learning anything.

As gasses go, the photon can only be absorbed by another gas at roughly its same frequency. The colder photon will pass through warmer molecule giving it no effect as will the warmer pass through the colder

No, molecules absorb and emit the exact same wavelengths. Emmisivity.

The same molecules held together as a solid or liquid will react with extra wavelengths because of the bonds holding the molecules together. That is getting beyond the scope of our conversation because you can't even understand the the ultrasimple case of a single molecule.

 

[Wuwei]

You have two molecules one at 10K and one at 236K.

You need many molecules in a substance to define temperature. A single molecule cannot ever define temperature. That makes the rest of your post moot.

You beat me to it. These guys are refractory to learning anything.

As gasses go, the photon can only be absorbed by another gas at roughly its same frequency. The colder photon will pass through warmer molecule giving it no effect as will the warmer pass through the colder

No, molecules absorb and emit the exact same wavelengths. Emmisivity.

The same molecules held together as a solid or liquid will react with extra wavelengths because of the bonds holding the molecules together. That is getting beyond the scope of our conversation because you can't even understand the the ultrasimple case of a single molecule.

Well said.

I have a hard time understanding how a lot of the guys on this board think. Some are steeped in trollism. That would easily explain their quest. But you are right. Their tenacious cling to gut-feel science is to the point where you would think they have no self-esteem whatsoever.