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

[itfitzme]

Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. All models represent the earth as a flat disk.

I am surprised that you are unaware of the earth portrayed in climate models. Even the crop of crazies that we had here before you and your sock showed up were aware that the models didn't represent the earth as a rotating sphere and that they arbitrarily put the sun 4x further away than it actually is.

Do a bit of research into what is actually meant by P/4

Hunke, E.C., and J.K. Dukowicz, 2002: The Elastic-Viscous-Plastic sea ice dynamics model in general orthogonal curvilinear coordinates on a sphere–Effect of metric terms. Mon. Weather Rev., 130, 1848–1865.

Not a climate model goober and not really modelling a spherical earth...an ad hoc construct that pretends to model a sperical earth...and again, not a climate model at all.

Niether is your flat earth disk cartoon.

 

[itfitzme]

Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. All models represent the earth as a flat disk.

"...three-dimensional, viscoelastic, spherical earth, finite element model that..."

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/ar5/authorsresource/unsolicited/13389.pdf

"By 1965 Manabe's group had a reasonably complete three-dimensional global model that solved the basic equations for an atmosphere divided into nine levels."

"Some groups, instead of dividing the planet's surface into a grid of thousands of square cells, took to dividing it into a tier of segments — hemispheres, quadrants, eighths, sixteenths, etc. ("spherical harmonics"). After doing a calculation on this abstracted system, they could combine and transform the numbers back into a geographical map"

"They avoided problems with the North and South Poles simply by shifting the troublesome convergence points onto a land mass.(36)"


General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

The human brain is a model of the world. And, like climate models, they can have gross or fine resolution. Climate models progressively increased resolution, refining the grid on a spherical representation, to finer and finer elements.

Some human brains represent the world with gross amd sweeping generalizations like "All models represent ...."

 

[westwall]

Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. All models represent the earth as a flat disk.

"...three-dimensional, viscoelastic, spherical earth, finite element model that..."

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/ar5/authorsresource/unsolicited/13389.pdf

"By 1965 Manabe's group had a reasonably complete three-dimensional global model that solved the basic equations for an atmosphere divided into nine levels."

"Some groups, instead of dividing the planet's surface into a grid of thousands of square cells, took to dividing it into a tier of segments — hemispheres, quadrants, eighths, sixteenths, etc. ("spherical harmonics"). After doing a calculation on this abstracted system, they could combine and transform the numbers back into a geographical map"

"They avoided problems with the North and South Poles simply by shifting the troublesome convergence points onto a land mass.(36)"


General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

The human brain is a model of the world. And, like climate models, they can have gross or fine resolution. Climate models progressively increased resolution, refining the grid on a spherical representation, to finer and finer elements.

Some human brains represent the world with gross amd sweeping generalizations like "All models represent ...."

Models models everywhere and not a drop of actual data anywhere....

 

[itfitzme]

Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. All models represent the earth as a flat disk.

"...three-dimensional, viscoelastic, spherical earth, finite element model that..."

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/ar5/authorsresource/unsolicited/13389.pdf

"By 1965 Manabe's group had a reasonably complete three-dimensional global model that solved the basic equations for an atmosphere divided into nine levels."

"Some groups, instead of dividing the planet's surface into a grid of thousands of square cells, took to dividing it into a tier of segments — hemispheres, quadrants, eighths, sixteenths, etc. ("spherical harmonics"). After doing a calculation on this abstracted system, they could combine and transform the numbers back into a geographical map"

"They avoided problems with the North and South Poles simply by shifting the troublesome convergence points onto a land mass.(36)"


General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

The human brain is a model of the world. And, like climate models, they can have gross or fine resolution. Climate models progressively increased resolution, refining the grid on a spherical representation, to finer and finer elements.

Some human brains represent the world with gross amd sweeping generalizations like "All models represent ...."

Models models everywhere and not a drop of actual data anywhere....

And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;

No data in your head. Plenty in climate models. Your ignorance doesn't change reality.

 

[PMZ]

"...three-dimensional, viscoelastic, spherical earth, finite element model that..."

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/ar5/authorsresource/unsolicited/13389.pdf

"By 1965 Manabe's group had a reasonably complete three-dimensional global model that solved the basic equations for an atmosphere divided into nine levels."

"Some groups, instead of dividing the planet's surface into a grid of thousands of square cells, took to dividing it into a tier of segments — hemispheres, quadrants, eighths, sixteenths, etc. ("spherical harmonics"). After doing a calculation on this abstracted system, they could combine and transform the numbers back into a geographical map"

"They avoided problems with the North and South Poles simply by shifting the troublesome convergence points onto a land mass.(36)"


General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

The human brain is a model of the world. And, like climate models, they can have gross or fine resolution. Climate models progressively increased resolution, refining the grid on a spherical representation, to finer and finer elements.

Some human brains represent the world with gross amd sweeping generalizations like "All models represent ...."

Models models everywhere and not a drop of actual data anywhere....

And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;

No data in your head. Plenty in climate models. Your ignorance doesn't change reality.

What kind of person believes that whatever they don't know, doesn't exist?

We can certainly be glad that there aren't many of them.

 

[westwall]

"...three-dimensional, viscoelastic, spherical earth, finite element model that..."

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/ar5/authorsresource/unsolicited/13389.pdf

"By 1965 Manabe's group had a reasonably complete three-dimensional global model that solved the basic equations for an atmosphere divided into nine levels."

"Some groups, instead of dividing the planet's surface into a grid of thousands of square cells, took to dividing it into a tier of segments — hemispheres, quadrants, eighths, sixteenths, etc. ("spherical harmonics"). After doing a calculation on this abstracted system, they could combine and transform the numbers back into a geographical map"

"They avoided problems with the North and South Poles simply by shifting the troublesome convergence points onto a land mass.(36)"


General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

The human brain is a model of the world. And, like climate models, they can have gross or fine resolution. Climate models progressively increased resolution, refining the grid on a spherical representation, to finer and finer elements.

Some human brains represent the world with gross amd sweeping generalizations like "All models represent ...."

Models models everywhere and not a drop of actual data anywhere....

And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;

No data in your head. Plenty in climate models. Your ignorance doesn't change reality.

The simple fact that your pretty models and graphs bear no semblance to reality exposes you as the ignorant one there Charlie Brown...

 

[westwall]

Models models everywhere and not a drop of actual data anywhere....

And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;

No data in your head. Plenty in climate models. Your ignorance doesn't change reality.

What kind of person believes that whatever they don't know, doesn't exist?

We can certainly be glad that there aren't many of them.

I don't know? How does that feel? To you personally I mean?

 

[itfitzme]

Models models everywhere and not a drop of actual data anywhere....

And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;

No data in your head. Plenty in climate models. Your ignorance doesn't change reality.

The simple fact that your pretty models and graphs bear no semblance to reality exposes you as the ignorant one there Charlie Brown...

The simple fact that your head bears no semblance to reality exposes that "you as the ignorant one there Charlie Brown" ...

The unpredictability of the world must keep you from leaving the house. However do you go shopping when the price of bread isn't exactly the same as it was last week?

"OMG, it was $2.18 last week and it's $2.28 this week. It is completely unpredictable. I can't do anything!!!"

 

[SSDD]

Thermodynamics is a description of net averages. It is not a description of individual particles. The difference can be seen in the random walk of Brownian motion. Refer to Einstien's paper on Brownian Motion, in which he tied the laws of thermodynamics to elementary particles, proved the existence of atoms and molecules as real objects, and demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics describe the statistical average behavior of large quantities of particles.

So you say, and yet, that is not what the zeroth, first, second, or third laws of thermodynamics says.

When making my argument, I simply quote the statement of the Second Law. When you make your argument, you do not. You go into theoretical world where nothing is known for sure, and nothing is proven, and nothing is observed.

Who has the stronger argument? That's easy. Who is basing their argument on the statement of the laws of thermodynamics and who is basing their argument on unproven theory?

Again, what does the Second Law say about the movement of energy from one entropy state to another and if you can ever manage to work up enough intellectual honesty to actually bring yourself to answer the question, you can then tell me how that statement applies to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

Hunke, E.C., and J.K. Dukowicz, 2002: The Elastic-Viscous-Plastic sea ice dynamics model in general orthogonal curvilinear coordinates on a sphere–Effect of metric terms. Mon. Weather Rev., 130, 1848–1865.

Not a climate model goober and not really modelling a spherical earth...an ad hoc construct that pretends to model a sperical earth...and again, not a climate model at all.

Niether is your flat earth disk cartoon.

I have no flat earth disk cartoon. The model I subscribe to is that of a rotating spherical earth with a sun that is the same distance away from us as reality dictates. The model I subscribe to actually predicts the temperature here, as well as that of every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...unlike yours which can't even come close to predicting the temperatures of other planets and only predicts the temperature here because of the constant tweaking that ad hoc constructs require.

Of course the model I subscribe to doesn't need an ad hoc greenhouse effect to explain the temperature because of defeciencies in the physics upon which it is based.

 

[SSDD]

Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. All models represent the earth as a flat disk.

"...three-dimensional, viscoelastic, spherical earth, finite element model that..."

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/ar5/authorsresource/unsolicited/13389.pdf

"By 1965 Manabe's group had a reasonably complete three-dimensional global model that solved the basic equations for an atmosphere divided into nine levels."

"Some groups, instead of dividing the planet's surface into a grid of thousands of square cells, took to dividing it into a tier of segments — hemispheres, quadrants, eighths, sixteenths, etc. ("spherical harmonics"). After doing a calculation on this abstracted system, they could combine and transform the numbers back into a geographical map"

"They avoided problems with the North and South Poles simply by shifting the troublesome convergence points onto a land mass.(36)"


General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

The human brain is a model of the world. And, like climate models, they can have gross or fine resolution. Climate models progressively increased resolution, refining the grid on a spherical representation, to finer and finer elements.

Some human brains represent the world with gross amd sweeping generalizations like "All models represent ...."

And yet, all climate models in use today portray the earth as a flat disk with no day and night receiving exactly the same amount of solar energy at every point across its surface 24 hours a day.

You can feel free to provide link after link of people who may have experimented with models that attempt to depict reality, but the fact remains that all climate models in use today are based on a flat earth.

 

[itfitzme]

Thermodynamics is a description of net averages. It is not a description of individual particles. The difference can be seen in the random walk of Brownian motion. Refer to Einstien's paper on Brownian Motion, in which he tied the laws of thermodynamics to elementary particles, proved the existence of atoms and molecules as real objects, and demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics describe the statistical average behavior of large quantities of particles.

So you say, and yet, that is not what the zeroth, first, second, or third laws of thermodynamics says.

When making my argument, I simply quote the statement of the Second Law. When you make your argument, you do not. You go into theoretical world where nothing is known for sure, and nothing is proven, and nothing is observed.

Who has the stronger argument? That's easy. Who is basing their argument on the statement of the laws of thermodynamics and who is basing their argument on unproven theory?

Again, what does the Second Law say about the movement of energy from one entropy state to another and if you can ever manage to work up enough intellectual honesty to actually bring yourself to answer the question, you can then tell me how that statement applies to the hypothetical greenhouse effect.

I'm just pointing out that thermodynamic laws are macroscopic laws that define the statistical behavior of large numbers of particles and that Einstein demonstrated this and the existance of atomic particles in his paper on brownian motion.

What are you talking about? Are you having difficulty, again, distinguishing betweem individuals?

 

[itfitzme]

Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. All models represent the earth as a flat disk.

"...three-dimensional, viscoelastic, spherical earth, finite element model that..."

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/ar5/authorsresource/unsolicited/13389.pdf

"By 1965 Manabe's group had a reasonably complete three-dimensional global model that solved the basic equations for an atmosphere divided into nine levels."

"Some groups, instead of dividing the planet's surface into a grid of thousands of square cells, took to dividing it into a tier of segments — hemispheres, quadrants, eighths, sixteenths, etc. ("spherical harmonics"). After doing a calculation on this abstracted system, they could combine and transform the numbers back into a geographical map"

"They avoided problems with the North and South Poles simply by shifting the troublesome convergence points onto a land mass.(36)"


General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

The human brain is a model of the world. And, like climate models, they can have gross or fine resolution. Climate models progressively increased resolution, refining the grid on a spherical representation, to finer and finer elements.

Some human brains represent the world with gross amd sweeping generalizations like "All models represent ...."

And yet, all climate models in use today portray the earth as a flat disk with no day and night receiving exactly the same amount of solar energy at every point across its surface 24 hours a day.

You can feel free to provide link after link of people who may have experimented with models that attempt to depict reality, but the fact remains that all climate models in use today are based on a flat earth.

That's what you keep claiming. Though it is irrelevant.

 

[IanC]

I am not trying to convert you, but I am trying to make sure that no unwary reader thinks your bizarre theory of prohibited emission is correct.

You are doing even worse. You are attempting to mislead people who are not even in the conversation.

I have no bizarre theory. It is you who is operating on unproven theory and hypothesis. My argument is that Second Law of Thermodynamics says: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Tell me, what is strange and bizarre about my stating the Second Law and saying that I believe it to not only be true, but to mean what it says? What is bizarre Ian, is claiming that it doesn't mean what it says when if science had found it to be proveably wrong then science would have recended it and replace it with a more accurate statement. If the law didn't apply to individual events, and that was a proveable fact, don't you think that qualifier might be inclued in the statement of the law?

Would you think it bizarre if I quoted the Ideal Gas Law in a discussion over whether or not the state of a gas is determined by its pressure, volume and temperature?

Would you accuse me of bizarre theories if I quoted Dalton's Law if we were in disagreement over whether the pressure of a mixture of gasses is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the component gasses and said that you were wrong if your position were in opposition to the statement of that law?

If you would think that bringing the statements of those laws into those conversations would constitued bizarre beliefs on the part of the one who used them, then you are even further out there than I had suspected....now if the use of those physical laws, in support of an argument are not bizarre, how then could the use of the statement of the most fundamental physical law be any more bizarre? What is bizarre Ian, is to be in disagreement with that statement.

you keep saying I think the Second Law is wrong but I keep saying it is right, only your understanding of it is wrong.

So you keep saying but all I need do is quote the Second Law and ask you how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypotheisis, and you immediately deviate from the statement of the law and go into how it doesn't really mean what it says or that even though it is written in absolute terms it doesn't really mean what it says. If you disagree with it as an absolute statement regarding the movement of energy from one place to another, then you, by definition, think it is wrong.




And that is what it remains. Till some actual evidence, beyond mathematical and computer models proves it wrong, it is what it is. You are trying to replace a law of nature with a theory...it is as simple as that. QM is theoretical and will remain theoretical for longer than either of us have left on this earth and much of what it states today will be found out to be completely wrong. Any thoery that must form an ad hoc solution to explain the orbitals of a hydrogen atom is suspect from the start.

now statistical mechanics describe exactly how and why it works.

Statistical mechanics is a theory and it ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE. There is a fundamental difference between describing a thing not understood in factual, proveable terms and attempting to describe a thing not understood in unproven theoretical ideas. You put far to much faith in things that aren't even beginning to be proven.

but nowhere in all the volumes that have been writen about thermodynamics is there anything stating the existence of a previously unknown physical law prohibiting radiation emission from a particle, or the emission in a certain direction, because of a temperature differential. you wont even say how the particle knows the temperature of its surroundings.

There doesn't need to be any such statement for reasons I have already given you. The statement of the Second Law is made in absolute terms. It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. A statement like that doesn't need further qualification. There is no need to describe every possible energy exchange from place to place or in quanity.

The statement says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body. Which part of "not possible" is it that you are having problems understanding. A statement like that makes it unnecessary to describe when heat might flow from a cooler object to a warmer object because it is "NOT POSSIBLE". If it were possible, then the statement would say something else, or not exist at all.

"ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT". That statement does not need a sub statement saying that the law also includes particles. It says that energy WILL NOT flow from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. The law would fill volumes that would fill and overflow the library of congress if it were necessary to clearly state every possible energy exchange.

The statement is that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body and energy WILL NOT flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object and it is enough. If you have a theory or hypothesis that runs afoul of that statement, then your theory or hypothesis is doomed no matter how much press it can get and you will, in fact, be the one guilty of bizarre behavior in trying to get around the most fundamental law of nature.

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

Will you answer this time?

 

[PMZ]

I am not trying to convert you, but I am trying to make sure that no unwary reader thinks your bizarre theory of prohibited emission is correct.

You are doing even worse. You are attempting to mislead people who are not even in the conversation.

I have no bizarre theory. It is you who is operating on unproven theory and hypothesis. My argument is that Second Law of Thermodynamics says: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Tell me, what is strange and bizarre about my stating the Second Law and saying that I believe it to not only be true, but to mean what it says? What is bizarre Ian, is claiming that it doesn't mean what it says when if science had found it to be proveably wrong then science would have recended it and replace it with a more accurate statement. If the law didn't apply to individual events, and that was a proveable fact, don't you think that qualifier might be inclued in the statement of the law?

Would you think it bizarre if I quoted the Ideal Gas Law in a discussion over whether or not the state of a gas is determined by its pressure, volume and temperature?

Would you accuse me of bizarre theories if I quoted Dalton's Law if we were in disagreement over whether the pressure of a mixture of gasses is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the component gasses and said that you were wrong if your position were in opposition to the statement of that law?

If you would think that bringing the statements of those laws into those conversations would constitued bizarre beliefs on the part of the one who used them, then you are even further out there than I had suspected....now if the use of those physical laws, in support of an argument are not bizarre, how then could the use of the statement of the most fundamental physical law be any more bizarre? What is bizarre Ian, is to be in disagreement with that statement.




So you keep saying but all I need do is quote the Second Law and ask you how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypotheisis, and you immediately deviate from the statement of the law and go into how it doesn't really mean what it says or that even though it is written in absolute terms it doesn't really mean what it says. If you disagree with it as an absolute statement regarding the movement of energy from one place to another, then you, by definition, think it is wrong.




And that is what it remains. Till some actual evidence, beyond mathematical and computer models proves it wrong, it is what it is. You are trying to replace a law of nature with a theory...it is as simple as that. QM is theoretical and will remain theoretical for longer than either of us have left on this earth and much of what it states today will be found out to be completely wrong. Any thoery that must form an ad hoc solution to explain the orbitals of a hydrogen atom is suspect from the start.



Statistical mechanics is a theory and it ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE. There is a fundamental difference between describing a thing not understood in factual, proveable terms and attempting to describe a thing not understood in unproven theoretical ideas. You put far to much faith in things that aren't even beginning to be proven.

but nowhere in all the volumes that have been writen about thermodynamics is there anything stating the existence of a previously unknown physical law prohibiting radiation emission from a particle, or the emission in a certain direction, because of a temperature differential. you wont even say how the particle knows the temperature of its surroundings.

There doesn't need to be any such statement for reasons I have already given you. The statement of the Second Law is made in absolute terms. It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. A statement like that doesn't need further qualification. There is no need to describe every possible energy exchange from place to place or in quanity.

The statement says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body. Which part of "not possible" is it that you are having problems understanding. A statement like that makes it unnecessary to describe when heat might flow from a cooler object to a warmer object because it is "NOT POSSIBLE". If it were possible, then the statement would say something else, or not exist at all.

"ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT". That statement does not need a sub statement saying that the law also includes particles. It says that energy WILL NOT flow from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. The law would fill volumes that would fill and overflow the library of congress if it were necessary to clearly state every possible energy exchange.

The statement is that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body and energy WILL NOT flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object and it is enough. If you have a theory or hypothesis that runs afoul of that statement, then your theory or hypothesis is doomed no matter how much press it can get and you will, in fact, be the one guilty of bizarre behavior in trying to get around the most fundamental law of nature.

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

Will you answer this time?

I think that a more interesting question that you might know the answer to is:

When a GHG molecule absorbs longwave radiation the electron cloud moves to a higher energy state which is unstable. When it stablizes by radiating the excess energy, does a wave of energy really go off in all directions, or does a photon go off in one direction that is randomized only though many such events?

 

[PMZ]

I am not trying to convert you, but I am trying to make sure that no unwary reader thinks your bizarre theory of prohibited emission is correct.

You are doing even worse. You are attempting to mislead people who are not even in the conversation.

I have no bizarre theory. It is you who is operating on unproven theory and hypothesis. My argument is that Second Law of Thermodynamics says: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Tell me, what is strange and bizarre about my stating the Second Law and saying that I believe it to not only be true, but to mean what it says? What is bizarre Ian, is claiming that it doesn't mean what it says when if science had found it to be proveably wrong then science would have recended it and replace it with a more accurate statement. If the law didn't apply to individual events, and that was a proveable fact, don't you think that qualifier might be inclued in the statement of the law?

Would you think it bizarre if I quoted the Ideal Gas Law in a discussion over whether or not the state of a gas is determined by its pressure, volume and temperature?

Would you accuse me of bizarre theories if I quoted Dalton's Law if we were in disagreement over whether the pressure of a mixture of gasses is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the component gasses and said that you were wrong if your position were in opposition to the statement of that law?

If you would think that bringing the statements of those laws into those conversations would constitued bizarre beliefs on the part of the one who used them, then you are even further out there than I had suspected....now if the use of those physical laws, in support of an argument are not bizarre, how then could the use of the statement of the most fundamental physical law be any more bizarre? What is bizarre Ian, is to be in disagreement with that statement.




So you keep saying but all I need do is quote the Second Law and ask you how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypotheisis, and you immediately deviate from the statement of the law and go into how it doesn't really mean what it says or that even though it is written in absolute terms it doesn't really mean what it says. If you disagree with it as an absolute statement regarding the movement of energy from one place to another, then you, by definition, think it is wrong.




And that is what it remains. Till some actual evidence, beyond mathematical and computer models proves it wrong, it is what it is. You are trying to replace a law of nature with a theory...it is as simple as that. QM is theoretical and will remain theoretical for longer than either of us have left on this earth and much of what it states today will be found out to be completely wrong. Any thoery that must form an ad hoc solution to explain the orbitals of a hydrogen atom is suspect from the start.



Statistical mechanics is a theory and it ATTEMPTS TO DESCRIBE. There is a fundamental difference between describing a thing not understood in factual, proveable terms and attempting to describe a thing not understood in unproven theoretical ideas. You put far to much faith in things that aren't even beginning to be proven.

but nowhere in all the volumes that have been writen about thermodynamics is there anything stating the existence of a previously unknown physical law prohibiting radiation emission from a particle, or the emission in a certain direction, because of a temperature differential. you wont even say how the particle knows the temperature of its surroundings.

There doesn't need to be any such statement for reasons I have already given you. The statement of the Second Law is made in absolute terms. It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. A statement like that doesn't need further qualification. There is no need to describe every possible energy exchange from place to place or in quanity.

The statement says that it is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body. Which part of "not possible" is it that you are having problems understanding. A statement like that makes it unnecessary to describe when heat might flow from a cooler object to a warmer object because it is "NOT POSSIBLE". If it were possible, then the statement would say something else, or not exist at all.

"ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT". That statement does not need a sub statement saying that the law also includes particles. It says that energy WILL NOT flow from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. The law would fill volumes that would fill and overflow the library of congress if it were necessary to clearly state every possible energy exchange.

The statement is that it is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body and energy WILL NOT flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object and it is enough. If you have a theory or hypothesis that runs afoul of that statement, then your theory or hypothesis is doomed no matter how much press it can get and you will, in fact, be the one guilty of bizarre behavior in trying to get around the most fundamental law of nature.

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

Will you answer this time?

Of course another interesting variation is:

Two bodies in space. They are attracted to each other, through the nothing in between them in proportion to their combined masses. How does each one know the mass of the other?

BTW, this is not a trick question. I agree with you on the radiation issue. I'm just curious.

 

[itfitzme]

Well, there is something between two masses, in space, that is in proportion to the two masses. It is the gravitational field. This is sufficient for Newtonian mechanics.

Einstein collapsed this to space itself, defining that space-time is "deformed" by the presence of the mass. This is sufficient for relativity, when velocities are near light speed, mass is very large, and time is measured at small scales.

 

[itfitzme]

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

I didn't feel like searching throug the thread to figure out the entire context. The original point may have gotten lost, but I think I got the gist of it, which is why I posted;

"Thermodynamics is a description of net averages. It is not a description of individual particles. The difference can be seen in the random walk of Brownian motion. Refer to Einstien's paper on Brownian Motion, in which he tied the laws of thermodynamics to elementary particles, proved the existence of atoms and molecules as real objects, and demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics describe the statistical average behavior of large quantities of particles."

You are absolutely correct. *Two systems at thermal disequilibrium do transfer instantaneous energy in both directions. Thermodynamic laws are a description of the statistcal averages for large numbers of particle.

As your example implies, two bodies at different temperatures emit radiation completely independent of each other. The body at a higher temperature does absorb energy from the cooler body. The warmer body, on average, emits more radiation than the cooler body. So, on average, there is a net energy transfer from the warmer to the cooler body.

In terms of gasses and other matter, where the energy is tranfered in the form of kinetic energy, it was not resolved, until Einstein's paper on Brownian motion, if atoms and molecules were a real or theoretical construct. *Einstein showed them to be real and the issue of thermodynamic laws being a statistical macro process was resolved.

It now comes down to probabilities. It is statistically, and really possible, for the net energy movement to be transfered from the cold body to the warm one. *In practice, over large quantities of particles, the probability of this occuring is so increadibly small, as to make it insignificant in practice. In practice, it is practically impossible. It is not absolutely impossible. And there is no way to utilize this to extract energy from the system or violate the macro laws of thermodynamics. *Any device imaginable is part of the thermodynamic system and, as such, cannot change the macroscopic outcome.

 

[PMZ]

Well, there is something between two masses, in space, that is in proportion to the two masses. It is the gravitational field. This is sufficient for Newtonian mechanics.

Einstein collapsed this to space itself, defining that space-time is "deformed" by the presence of the mass. This is sufficient for relativity, when velocities are near light speed, mass is very large, and time is measured at small scales.

I understand that as the assumption generally made. What I don't understand is an undetectable (unlike a magnetic) gravitational field. Especially which, to be effective must have knowledge of all masses no matter how far distant.

Curvature of space time is also the accepted model but has no intuitive meaning to me.

Perhaps I'll have to bumble through life without knowing.

 

[PMZ]

Two objects of the same temperature, not touching and in a vacuum (no conduction or convection). Do they radiate at each other? If they do I am right ( or at least more correct). If they don't what happened to the radiation and how did the objects know the other was there and what temperature it was at?

I didn't feel like searching throug the thread to figure out the entire context. The original point may have gotten lost, but I think I got the gist of it, which is why I posted;

"Thermodynamics is a description of net averages. It is not a description of individual particles. The difference can be seen in the random walk of Brownian motion. Refer to Einstien's paper on Brownian Motion, in which he tied the laws of thermodynamics to elementary particles, proved the existence of atoms and molecules as real objects, and demonstrated that the laws of thermodynamics describe the statistical average behavior of large quantities of particles."

You are absolutely correct. *Two systems at thermal disequilibrium do transfer instantaneous energy in both directions. Thermodynamic laws are a description of the statistcal averages for large numbers of particle.

As your example implies, two bodies at different temperatures emit radiation completely independent of each other. The body at a higher temperature does absorb energy from the cooler body. The warmer body, on average, emits more radiation than the cooler body. So, on average, there is a net energy transfer from the warmer to the cooler body.

In terms of gasses and other matter, where the energy is tranfered in the form of kinetic energy, it was not resolved, until Einstein's paper on Brownian motion, if atoms and molecules were a real or theoretical construct. *Einstein showed them to be real and the issue of thermodynamic laws being a statistical macro process was resolved.

It now comes down to probabilities. It is statistically, and really possible, for the net energy movement to be transfered from the cold body to the warm one. *In practice, over large quantities of particles, the probability of this occuring is so increadibly small, as to make it insignificant in practice. In practice, it is practically impossible. It is not absolutely impossible. And there is no way to utilize this to extract energy from the system or violate the macro laws of thermodynamics. *Any device imaginable is part of the thermodynamic system and, as such, cannot change the macroscopic outcome.

I posted a reference earlier that used the concept of two hot plates in a vacuum box. if constant power is put into one, it will eventually warm to a stable equilibrium temperature. If constant power is then introduced into the second one, such that it rises to a lower equilibrium temperature, the temperature of the first one will also increase due to the energy radiated from the cooler one.

I've never tried that but it would be a simple experiment to replicate.