how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[IanC]

Precisely where the second law says it must go...in the direction of more entropy. Every observation ever made, every experiment ever done verifies that fundamental fact...ergo, the second LAW of thermodynamics.

The second law does not apply at the molecular level any more than a statistical inference predicts exactly the behavior of any individual.

So you say. Now prove it. Lets see the empirical evidence. What's that you say? There is none; and you have acceped it as an article of faith.

And this will remain true no matter how many times you claim the opposite.

What will remain true is that there isn't even the smallest bit of empirical evidence to support the claim. What will also remain true is that the belief, is an act of faith on your part...an act of faith in accepting a thing that has not, nor can not be proven. The same sort of faith that those who believe in a 6000 year old earth express. Congratulations.

Hahaha. SSDD thinks there has been no experimental evidence in support of quantum mechanics!!!!!

He would rather believe implicitly in old time scientists using antiquated equipment and no understanding of the molecular mechanisms. He doesn't even realize it was their failure to reconcile the data with classic theory that led to the necessity of inventing quantum mechanics! QM started off as an ad hoc fix to make the equations work.

 

[orogenicman]

The second law does not apply at the molecular level any more than a statistical inference predicts exactly the behavior of any individual.

So you say. Now prove it. Lets see the empirical evidence. What's that you say? There is none; and you have acceped it as an article of faith.

And this will remain true no matter how many times you claim the opposite.

What will remain true is that there isn't even the smallest bit of empirical evidence to support the claim. What will also remain true is that the belief, is an act of faith on your part...an act of faith in accepting a thing that has not, nor can not be proven. The same sort of faith that those who believe in a 6000 year old earth express. Congratulations.

Hahaha. SSDD thinks there has been no experimental evidence in support of quantum mechanics!!!!!

He would rather believe implicitly in old time scientists using antiquated equipment and no understanding of the molecular mechanisms. He doesn't even realize it was their failure to reconcile the data with classic theory that led to the necessity of inventing quantum mechanics! QM started off as an ad hoc fix to make the equations work.

I suspect he is one of those unfortunate souls who kept sticking his tongue in the wall outlet AFTER having already had the shite shocked out of him. Of course, this doesn't mean he has an electrifying personality, just that, nothing he says is shocking anymore.

 

[SSDD]

The second law does not apply at the molecular level any more than a statistical inference predicts exactly the behavior of any individual.

So you say. Now prove it. Lets see the empirical evidence. What's that you say? There is none; and you have acceped it as an article of faith.

And this will remain true no matter how many times you claim the opposite.

What will remain true is that there isn't even the smallest bit of empirical evidence to support the claim. What will also remain true is that the belief, is an act of faith on your part...an act of faith in accepting a thing that has not, nor can not be proven. The same sort of faith that those who believe in a 6000 year old earth express. Congratulations.

Hahaha. SSDD thinks there has been no experimental evidence in support of quantum mechanics!!!!!

He would rather believe implicitly in old time scientists using antiquated equipment and no understanding of the molecular mechanisms. He doesn't even realize it was their failure to reconcile the data with classic theory that led to the necessity of inventing quantum mechanics! QM started off as an ad hoc fix to make the equations work.

I can't help but notice that for all your crowing, you didn't provide any link to the empirical evidence that would support your claim. We both know that you didn't because it doesn't exist

 

[SSDD]

So you say. Now prove it. Lets see the empirical evidence. What's that you say? There is none; and you have acceped it as an article of faith.



What will remain true is that there isn't even the smallest bit of empirical evidence to support the claim. What will also remain true is that the belief, is an act of faith on your part...an act of faith in accepting a thing that has not, nor can not be proven. The same sort of faith that those who believe in a 6000 year old earth express. Congratulations.

Hahaha. SSDD thinks there has been no experimental evidence in support of quantum mechanics!!!!!

He would rather believe implicitly in old time scientists using antiquated equipment and no understanding of the molecular mechanisms. He doesn't even realize it was their failure to reconcile the data with classic theory that led to the necessity of inventing quantum mechanics! QM started off as an ad hoc fix to make the equations work.

I suspect he is one of those unfortunate souls who kept sticking his tongue in the wall outlet AFTER having already had the shite shocked out of him. Of course, this doesn't mean he has an electrifying personality, just that, nothing he says is shocking anymore.

I can't help but notice that you also have not posted a link to any empirical evidence to support your claims.

 

[Abraham3]

SSDD, do you actually mean to say that you do not believe any experiment has ever verified QM?

 

[itfitzme]

"I can't help but notice that for all your crowing, you didn't provide any link to the empirical evidence that would support your claim. We both know that you didn't because it doesn't exist"

Axiom: If it's not on the internet, it doesn't exist!

 

[orogenicman]

Hahaha. SSDD thinks there has been no experimental evidence in support of quantum mechanics!!!!!

He would rather believe implicitly in old time scientists using antiquated equipment and no understanding of the molecular mechanisms. He doesn't even realize it was their failure to reconcile the data with classic theory that led to the necessity of inventing quantum mechanics! QM started off as an ad hoc fix to make the equations work.

I suspect he is one of those unfortunate souls who kept sticking his tongue in the wall outlet AFTER having already had the shite shocked out of him. Of course, this doesn't mean he has an electrifying personality, just that, nothing he says is shocking anymore.

I can't help but notice that you also have not posted a link to any empirical evidence to support your claims.

So we are required to provide empirical evidence to support our insults? Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha! They are insults, dumbass. The only requirement is that they be insulting. Take a number and get back in line.

 

[gslack]

The second law does not apply at the molecular level any more than a statistical inference predicts exactly the behavior of any individual.

So you say. Now prove it. Lets see the empirical evidence. What's that you say? There is none; and you have acceped it as an article of faith.

And this will remain true no matter how many times you claim the opposite.

What will remain true is that there isn't even the smallest bit of empirical evidence to support the claim. What will also remain true is that the belief, is an act of faith on your part...an act of faith in accepting a thing that has not, nor can not be proven. The same sort of faith that those who believe in a 6000 year old earth express. Congratulations.

Hahaha. SSDD thinks there has been no experimental evidence in support of quantum mechanics!!!!!

He would rather believe implicitly in old time scientists using antiquated equipment and no understanding of the molecular mechanisms. He doesn't even realize it was their failure to reconcile the data with classic theory that led to the necessity of inventing quantum mechanics! QM started off as an ad hoc fix to make the equations work.

HAHAHAHA Ian thinks QM is not a theory but fact...

It's a theory numbnuts. It is an attempt to explain the atomic and sub-atomic world that we cannot see directly. It's not complete, it has many issues, and that is A FACT...

Your pretense that it is a fact and complete shows how little you really understand..

 

[PMZ]

So you say. Now prove it. Lets see the empirical evidence. What's that you say? There is none; and you have acceped it as an article of faith.



What will remain true is that there isn't even the smallest bit of empirical evidence to support the claim. What will also remain true is that the belief, is an act of faith on your part...an act of faith in accepting a thing that has not, nor can not be proven. The same sort of faith that those who believe in a 6000 year old earth express. Congratulations.

Hahaha. SSDD thinks there has been no experimental evidence in support of quantum mechanics!!!!!

He would rather believe implicitly in old time scientists using antiquated equipment and no understanding of the molecular mechanisms. He doesn't even realize it was their failure to reconcile the data with classic theory that led to the necessity of inventing quantum mechanics! QM started off as an ad hoc fix to make the equations work.

HAHAHAHA Ian thinks QM is not a theory but fact...

It's a theory numbnuts. It is an attempt to explain the atomic and sub-atomic world that we cannot see directly. It's not complete, it has many issues, and that is A FACT...

Your pretense that it is a fact and complete shows how little you really understand..

Do you really think think that all mankind knows are things that we can see directly? That’s bizarre.

 

[IanC]

So you say. Now prove it. Lets see the empirical evidence. What's that you say? There is none; and you have acceped it as an article of faith.



What will remain true is that there isn't even the smallest bit of empirical evidence to support the claim. What will also remain true is that the belief, is an act of faith on your part...an act of faith in accepting a thing that has not, nor can not be proven. The same sort of faith that those who believe in a 6000 year old earth express. Congratulations.

Hahaha. SSDD thinks there has been no experimental evidence in support of quantum mechanics!!!!!

He would rather believe implicitly in old time scientists using antiquated equipment and no understanding of the molecular mechanisms. He doesn't even realize it was their failure to reconcile the data with classic theory that led to the necessity of inventing quantum mechanics! QM started off as an ad hoc fix to make the equations work.

HAHAHAHA Ian thinks QM is not a theory but fact...

It's a theory numbnuts. It is an attempt to explain the atomic and sub-atomic world that we cannot see directly. It's not complete, it has many issues, and that is A FACT...

Your pretense that it is a fact and complete shows how little you really understand..

Poor, poor gslack. Your world must be confusing to you, seen through the prism of such a tiny malfunctioning brain.

Does QM have paradoxes and counterintuative reasoning sometimes? Of course. Is it a useful and successful tool in describing our world and predicting outcomes? Most definitely yes.

I would compare it to i, the square root of negative one. Something that factually impossible but ever so useful. The world as we know it could not exist without complex numbers to solve the equations in our advanced technology. Imaginary numbers, just like quantum theory, are beyond even your rudimentary understanding but I assure you that they have an important place in our civilization.

 

[PMZ]

People who know little believe that that's all everyone knows. Dunning-Kruger.

People who know a lot tend to believe that everyone can know as much.

The Dunning-Kruger types just cannot move on. They have no motivation to.

 

[gslack]

Hahaha. SSDD thinks there has been no experimental evidence in support of quantum mechanics!!!!!

He would rather believe implicitly in old time scientists using antiquated equipment and no understanding of the molecular mechanisms. He doesn't even realize it was their failure to reconcile the data with classic theory that led to the necessity of inventing quantum mechanics! QM started off as an ad hoc fix to make the equations work.

HAHAHAHA Ian thinks QM is not a theory but fact...

It's a theory numbnuts. It is an attempt to explain the atomic and sub-atomic world that we cannot see directly. It's not complete, it has many issues, and that is A FACT...

Your pretense that it is a fact and complete shows how little you really understand..

Poor, poor gslack. Your world must be confusing to you, seen through the prism of such a tiny malfunctioning brain.

Does QM have paradoxes and counterintuative reasoning sometimes? Of course. Is it a useful and successful tool in describing our world and predicting outcomes? Most definitely yes.

I would compare it to i, the square root of negative one. Something that factually impossible but ever so useful. The world as we know it could not exist without complex numbers to solve the equations in our advanced technology. Imaginary numbers, just like quantum theory, are beyond even your rudimentary understanding but I assure you that they have an important place in our civilization.

And what's the difference between something being a "useful tool" as you put it, and a scientific and natural law? A law does rely on a statistical possibility, it is proven correct by observation.

The very fact that uncertainty principle ensures we cannot accurately know both position and momentum at the same time, should show my point.. How about the compromise known as wave-aprticle duality?

LOL, you think QM is complete as it is.. You're an idiot, who worships numbers with no grasp of what they mean in the real world... You take a mathematical possibility as a known certainty, and don't even realize the difference..

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, do you actually mean to say that you do not believe any experiment has ever verified QM?

I said that no experiments have been done that supports your claim that energy can spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. The fact that parts of QM have been verified doesn't mean that QM has been verified. It is still rife with contradictions and ad hoc fixes.

 

[SSDD]

"I can't help but notice that for all your crowing, you didn't provide any link to the empirical evidence that would support your claim. We both know that you didn't because it doesn't exist"

Axiom: If it's not on the internet, it doesn't exist!

Then give me a bibliographical reference. I am willing to visit a library. I am in a university library at least once a week so looking up your reference will be no problem.

 

[SSDD]

So we are required to provide empirical evidence to support our insults? Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha! They are insults, dumbass. The only requirement is that they be insulting. Take a number and get back in line.

Unable to follow the thread of a conversation huh? Unfortunate but not very surprising. Maybe if you go back and look carefully and read the conversation two or ten times, you will see what we were talking about and what prompted his sophmoric insult which then triggered a predictable knee jerk response in you.

 

[gslack]

Hahaha. SSDD thinks there has been no experimental evidence in support of quantum mechanics!!!!!

He would rather believe implicitly in old time scientists using antiquated equipment and no understanding of the molecular mechanisms. He doesn't even realize it was their failure to reconcile the data with classic theory that led to the necessity of inventing quantum mechanics! QM started off as an ad hoc fix to make the equations work.

HAHAHAHA Ian thinks QM is not a theory but fact...

It's a theory numbnuts. It is an attempt to explain the atomic and sub-atomic world that we cannot see directly. It's not complete, it has many issues, and that is A FACT...

Your pretense that it is a fact and complete shows how little you really understand..

Do you really think think that all mankind knows are things that we can see directly? That’s bizarre.

Quiet socko, you're not even worth a thoughtful response anymore. Everyone here knows it. Ian coddles you because it suits his needs at this time. he's a save-ass in warmer denial right now.. he will come into the fold of true warmer very soon...

 

[PMZ]

It's always entertaining to read those who don't understand science trying to use it to deny it. If you find that confusing you understand it perfectly.

 

[IanC]

SSDD, do you actually mean to say that you do not believe any experiment has ever verified QM?

I said that no experiments have been done that supports your claim that energy can spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. The fact that parts of QM have been verified doesn't mean that QM has been verified. It is still rife with contradictions and ad hoc fixes.

In effect you are saying that two objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other. That cannot happen in my worldview. You refuse to examine the consequences of your statements.

My explanations work easily with known physical properties, yours need a diety to keep score.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, do you actually mean to say that you do not believe any experiment has ever verified QM?

I said that no experiments have been done that supports your claim that energy can spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. The fact that parts of QM have been verified doesn't mean that QM has been verified. It is still rife with contradictions and ad hoc fixes.

In effect you are saying that two objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other. That cannot happen in my worldview. You refuse to examine the consequences of your statements.

My explanations work easily with known physical properties, yours need a diety to keep score.

And yet you can't give a single example of an observable experiment. In shot, you believe, you don't know. I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.

 

[itfitzme]

I said that no experiments have been done that supports your claim that energy can spontaneously move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state. The fact that parts of QM have been verified doesn't mean that QM has been verified. It is still rife with contradictions and ad hoc fixes.

In effect you are saying that two objects at the same temperature stop radiating at each other. That cannot happen in my worldview. You refuse to examine the consequences of your statements.

My explanations work easily with known physical properties, yours need a diety to keep score.

And yet you can't give a single example of an observable experiment. In shot, you believe, you don't know. I, on the other hand know that every observation ever made supports the second law in that energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy.

You are trying to make statements that are complete non-sequiters.

You cannot say, "energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy". It is a non-sense statement. There is no such thing as instantaneous entropy. Entropy is a statistical quality of a system. It is an accounting of all the states that the energy can be distributed in. At any instance of time, the energy can be distributed in on particular manner. At another instance, it can be distributed in another particular manner. Neither of these have any bearing on an "instantaneous" measure of entropy because entropy is a count of both distributions.

Energy in a system "moves" from one distribution to another.

A particle has a kinetic energy of K.E. = (1/2)*m*V^2. V is a three dimensional vector given as V = (Vx,Vy,Vz).

The kinetic energy of a particle is exactly the same for an infinite number of difference combinations of Vx, Vy and Vz.

Entropy counts how many different ways the energy can be distributed.

A particle with a velocity of 5 fps moving in a positive x direction has the exact same energy as a particle moving in the negative direction.

Two particles moving at the same speed in the same direction is one state. Two particles moving at the same speed in opposite directions is another state. Entropy is an accounting of all the different ways that the particle velocities can take on given the same amount of kinetic energy.

Two particle with the identical kinetic energy and momentum moving towards each other and colliding, given perfect elastic collisions, will move away in opposite directions. The amount of energy hasn't changed. The distribution of the energy has changed. The entropy is an accounting of both possible configurations, before and after the collision.

Saying, "energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy." is non-sense. It is attempting to force some concept onto "entropy" that doesn't exists.

Kinetic Energy=(.5) times mass times velocity squared

Force = mass time accelleration.

Work = Force times distance

A force, acting of a mass, accellerates it. In acting over a specific distance, that mass is accellerated from one velocity to another velocity. The energy of the mass changes from one level to another level.

In that description, energy didn't "move". The mass moved. The moving mass has energy. The concept of entropy is a complete non-sequiter because it simply doesn't apply to the change of energy of a particle as it accellerates from one velocity to another or moves from one position to another.

In order to speak of entropy, we must speak of the entopy of a large volume of particles with a distribution of energies. At any instance in time, there is no "entropy" of the system. At a specific instance in time, there is a distribution of energy among the particles, some at low velocity, some at high velocity. Those particles collide, constantly, and the distribution of energy changes. The amount of energy in the system does not change. The total number of states, the ways the particles can be distributed in velocities and directions, changes. An accounting of all the ways the particles can be distributed, over a large enough time period to be statistically relevant, is the entropy of the system.

Energy doesn't "move" from one entropy to another entropy. Entropy is an accounting of all the ways the energy can be distributed.

Saying "energy can't move from more entropy to less entropy" is making a statement of complete non-sense. It is niether true or false, it is simply not sensicle.

Entropy counts the number of configurations that the energy can be in. Energy changes constantly, in a system with energy, from one configuration to another.

When energy is added to a system, the number of configurations that the particles can assume increases. Energy did not "move" from one entropy to another in the process of adding energy.

A single particle does not have entropy.

Energy can be absorbed and excreted by a single particle with no concept of "entropy" even being part of the process.

You are confusing the meaning of "energy" and "entropy". A system can have energy. A particle can have energy. A photon is a little amount of energy. A moving mass has kinetic energy. When the particle or photon moves, the energy moves from one location and time to another location and time.

When energy is transfered between particles, the energy of one decreases and the energy of the other increases. We might concieve of the energy as having "moved" from one to the other.

A system, consisting of a large quantity of particles has energy. Energy can "move" all over the place, within that system of particles, without changing the energy of the system. The system has no instantaneous entropy. The system has instantaneous states of energy, defined by all the individual particles. The instantaneous condition of the energy can change from one state to another. There is no concept of instantaneous entropy in this.

A single molecule of gas does not have entropy. Two molecules of gas do not have entropy. To speak of entropy requires some 10^24 particles over a large period of time.

Two single molecules of gas have individual energies. No single molecule of gas has "temperature".

A molecule of gas with an energy level of E1 may emit a photon. Another molecule of gas at a higher energy level, E2>E1 can absorb that photon. There is not involvement of thermodynamics in this. There is no concept of entropy. There is no concept of entropy change. There is no entropy at all.

It's a complete non-sequiter.