No Evidence

[Crick]

Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?

 

[SSDD]

Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?

Because it is the actual physical law..and is supported by every observation and measurement ever made...we have never recorded "net" energy flow between objects...all measurements ever made show one way gross energy flow. Why do you accept a formula other than the actual SB law...a formula in which Tc can be set to a higher temperature than T which violates a basic tenet of the SB law, and a formula which has no observed, measured evidence to back it up?

We all know why you accept it skidmark...because you are a putz.

 

[Crick]

Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?

Because it is the actual physical law.

As has been demonstrated to us all by excerpts from multiple textbook explanation, it most certainly is not.

.and is supported by every observation and measurement ever made.

It most certainly has not. The basic premise that all matter radiates per its temperature regardless of surroundings, however, has been demonstrated by thousands and thousands of experiments and instance of daily experience.

we have never recorded "net" energy flow between objects...all measurements ever made show one way gross energy flow.

What has never, ever, ever been observed is the slightest change whatsoever in the thermal radiation of matter based on changes in its surrounding - your insane voodoo.

Here's an example of its absurdity. Matter A is radiating IR. A thousand years from now and a thousand light years from here, seven photons emitted by A will strike a hotter piece of matter that was ejected by a supernova that took place 999 years after they were emitted by A. In Same Shit's world, Matter A had to have known that supernova would take, when it would take place to within trillionths of a second (adjusted for relativity and the spacetime vector created by a thousand light years of moving matter and energy between them) and out of all the matter in that former star, that that ONE piece of hot matter would end up in the path of those seven photons and thus, per his rules, block their emission. When you ask Same Shit how any of that happens, he just gabbles about unknowns... says if you can't make gravity and quantum mechanics coexist you're not allowed to complain.

Why do you accept a formula other than the actual SB law...a formula in which Tc can be set to a higher temperature than T which violates a basic tenet of the SB law, and a formula which has no observed, measured evidence to back it up?

Because no such tenet exists. Show us ANY REFERENCE that requires SB's temperature inequality go in a specific direction. Any one at all. You claim it is a tenet, surely some textbook, some physics website, some authority somewhere would have mentioned it. Let's see it you annoying piece of shit.

We all know why you accept it skidmark...because you are a putz.

There are three possible characterizations for someone that insists on believing things that NO ONE ELSE believes: "Stupid", "Insane" or "Both".

 

[SSDD]

As has been demonstrated to us all by excerpts from multiple textbook explanation, it most certainly is not.

Sorry skidmark

Here are a few text books that DO NOTt recognize the bastardized version of the SB law that wuwei has snookered you guys into believing. Note: These are all textbooks aimed at those pursuing a degree in the hard sciences, physics, chemistry, meteorology, etc.

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody and Yung:
Radiative Heat Transfer by Modest
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar:
Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres by Marshak-Davis
An Introduction to Radiative Transferby Peraiah


Here are a few that DO recognize the bastardized version of the SB law. Note...these are not aimed at those entering the hard sciences but instead are geared towards those who are pursuing a degree in the soft science of climatology.

An Introduction to Atmospheric Physic by Andrews
A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Petty
Assessing Climate Change by Rapp
UN Climate Change Science Compendium 2009
Advancing the Science of Climate Change 2010, NRC

You are laughable.

 

[Crick]

I don't want a list of book titles and you know it. I want a quotation stating that the inequality only works in ONE DIRECTION - the TENET of SB you claimed.

 

[SSDD]

I don't want a list of book titles and you know it. I want a quotation stating that the inequality only works in ONE DIRECTION - the TENET of SB you claimed.

Of course you don't...you want to believe what you believe in spite of reality... that is because you are stupid and because you are a dupe.

 

[Crick]

I want what I asked you for, based on your statement implying its widespread existence.

We all know the answer. Your claim is complete bullshit. You can find no authority making any such claim because it just not fucking true. You (and the rest of us) have already seen other authorities discussing the inequality going in both directions. Your continued claim that it can only go in one is a fucking schizo-level of disconnect with reality.

Man the fuck up and stop lying.

 

[Wuwei]

Here are a few text books that DO NOTt recognize the bastardized version of the SB law that wuwei has snookered you guys into believing. Note: These are all textbooks aimed at those pursuing a degree in the hard sciences, physics, chemistry, meteorology, etc.
....
Radiative Transfer by Chandrasekhar

I am familiar with some of the work of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
He was highly respected in many fields. I very very seriously doubt that he could defy science and embarrass himself by believing "one way" radiation of objects. You will have to give a quote from the book.

In light of that I think you are lying and you will have to give references to the other sources that you think defy science as you do.

 

[SSDD]

You guys have any idea what that equation says yet? There is little point in further discussion till such time as you have demonstrated that you can actually read such a simple equation.

 

[Wuwei]

You guys have any idea what that equation says yet? There is little point in further discussion till such time as you have demonstrated that you can actually read such a simple equation.

You can't give any scientific reference can you. No wonder you want to abort the discussion. Your'e all alone in an embarrassing situation of mocking all science.

 

[SSDD]

that isn't what the equation says....try again.

 

[Wuwei]

that isn't what the equation says....try again.

It certainly does. You are lying again.

 

[SSDD]

Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.

Power equals the emissivity of the object, times the S-B constant times the area of the object times......

 

[Wuwei]

Try again....till such time as you state, in plain english what this equation says, we have nothing else to talk about.

Power equals the emissivity of the object, times the S-B constant times the area of the object times......

You keep trolling the same thing on a different thread. Here it is again.

 

[SSDD]

An equation that allows you to set Tc to a higher temperature than T is invalid...try again. I gave you the actual SB equation...read it

 

[Wuwei]

An equation that allows you to set Tc to a higher temperature than T is invalid...try again. I gave you the actual SB equation...read it

I gave you the actual derivation and explanation. If the equation goes negative it means it is absorbing more than it is radiating. That is what the text from Dartmouth University actually says in plain English. You should be able to figure that out. It's basic arithmetic after all.

 

[SSDD]

You gave me bullshit about a false version of a physical law...so what? Till such time as you state what the equation says, we have nothing else to talk about...except perhaps why you won't state what the equation says.

 

[Wuwei]

You gave me bullshit about a false version of a physical law...so what? Till such time as you state what the equation says, we have nothing else to talk about...except perhaps why you won't state what the equation says.

For God's sake. Can't you stop lying??? The Dartmouth text says exactly what the equation is. Why do you keep lying about that? Why do you keep playing the troll? You are calling that science a false version now. You have never ever given a reference to your made up version. You lose. Science wins. Sad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Given two interpretations of SB that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?

Because dimmer switches are needed to explain no back radiation.

 

[Crick]

You go on a bit about smart photons. Has SSDD ever said that his selective, throttled transmission are due to the behavior of the photons? All this time I've been thinking he thought matter was doing it.