No Evidence

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...The S-B law doesn't work on a gas...use it and you will be wrong...just like the climate models....but you guys are able to yank your own chains enough to convince yourselves that you are right....

You are still funny. OK let's make this easier for you. What formula do you use for the radiation behavior of a cold sphere in a large complex room at a uniformly higher temperature. You still didn't get that right.

sorry guy..not obligated to do anything more than demonstrate that you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims....you might ask yourself how it is that I always know what you can provide and what you can't.

 

[Crick]

The literature is filled with thousands of peer reviewed studies that provide empirical evidence that the world is getting warmer due to the increased greenhouse effect created by increased levels of anthropogenic CO2, and methane. You know this to be a fact. You, therefore, are a liar. A stupid, lying troll.

 

[jc456]

[
Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.

You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.

The whole point is that you DON'T know P. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.

You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?

Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.

I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.

T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction..

Says no one but you.

I say that. You can’t prove otherwise. Why?

 

[jc456]

The literature is filled with thousands of peer reviewed studies that provide empirical evidence that the world is getting warmer due to the increased greenhouse effect created by increased levels of anthropogenic CO2, and methane. You know this to be a fact. You, therefore, are a liar. A stupid, lying troll.

Peer reviewed, spit

 

[jc456]

[
Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.

You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.

The whole point is that you DON'T know P. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.

You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?

Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.

I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.

T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction..

Says no one but you.

And the second law of thermodynamics, and the S-B law, and every observation and measurement ever made...just those.

All by yourself. Still.
Otherwise you could post hundreds of scientists saying precisely what you claim.
Instead, every time you post a real source to back up your claims, they end up refuting your claims.
Every.
Single.
Time.

You're like a meme for WRONG.

And yet, still no observed have you shown big guy! Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.

You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.

The whole point is that you DON'T know P. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.

You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?

Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.

I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.

T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction..

Says no one but you.

I say that. You can’t prove otherwise. Why?

I say that.

You say energy only moves one way. And you can't post proof.
That's why we laugh at you.

 

[jc456]

[
Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.

You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.

The whole point is that you DON'T know P. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.

You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?

Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.

I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.

T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction..

Says no one but you.

I say that. You can’t prove otherwise. Why?

I say that.

You say energy only moves one way. And you can't post proof.
That's why we laugh at you.

Sure I can. 2nd law, Every experiment is one way. You can just post up that two way flow for us.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.

You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.

The whole point is that you DON'T know P. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.

You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?

Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.

I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.

T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction..

Says no one but you.

I say that. You can’t prove otherwise. Why?

I say that.

You say energy only moves one way. And you can't post proof.
That's why we laugh at you.

Sure I can. 2nd law, Every experiment is one way. You can just post up that two way flow for us.

So post your proof already.

 

[jc456]

You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.

You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?

I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.

T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction..

Says no one but you.

I say that. You can’t prove otherwise. Why?

I say that.

You say energy only moves one way. And you can't post proof.
That's why we laugh at you.

Sure I can. 2nd law, Every experiment is one way. You can just post up that two way flow for us.

So post your proof already.

I did, 2nd law. Prove cold moves to hot. Still waiting . Grasp is difficult for you eh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction..

Says no one but you.

I say that. You can’t prove otherwise. Why?

I say that.

You say energy only moves one way. And you can't post proof.
That's why we laugh at you.

Sure I can. 2nd law, Every experiment is one way. You can just post up that two way flow for us.

So post your proof already.

I did, 2nd law. Prove cold moves to hot. Still waiting . Grasp is difficult for you eh?

The 2nd Law doesn't prove your claim.

Are you not posting your proof because you don't have any?
Because none exists?
Or because you're too stupid to find any?

 

[SSDD]

The literature is filled with thousands of peer reviewed studies that provide empirical evidence that the world is getting warmer due to the increased greenhouse effect created by increased levels of anthropogenic CO2, and methane. You know this to be a fact. You, therefore, are a liar. A stupid, lying troll.

No...the literature is full of papers that have documented some warming and ascribed an opinion as to what caused it..but that is good enough to fool you...isn't it?

But I do invite you to produce just one...any single one in which the warming has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to our so called greenhouse gasses...any single one...I'll wait.

 

[Crick]

There is no point in producing anything for you. You will simply lie about it. Evidence of all sort has already been displayed here by dozens and dozens of posters. You know my standard recommendation. Go there and if you actually have any interest in seeing it, find it for yourself. If you think you can refute anything presented there, have at it.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...The S-B law doesn't work on a gas...use it and you will be wrong...just like the climate models....but you guys are able to yank your own chains enough to convince yourselves that you are right....

You are still funny. OK let's make this easier for you. What formula do you use for the radiation behavior of a cold sphere in a large complex room at a uniformly higher temperature. You still didn't get that right.

sorry guy..not obligated to do anything more than demonstrate that you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support your claims....you might ask yourself how it is that I always know what you can provide and what you can't.

You aren't obligated to say what formula applies to a cold sphere radiating in a room? Ha. That sounds like you are resigning in failure to understand how to cope with the SB equation in a very real and simple situation. I accept your concession.

The evidence that two-way radiation can happen is in the entropy version of the second law.

 

[SSDD]

There is no point in producing anything for you. You will simply lie about it. Evidence of all sort has already been displayed here by dozens and dozens of posters. You know my standard recommendation. Go there and if you actually have any interest in seeing it, find it for yourself. If you think you can refute anything presented there, have at it.

So that would be a no...you can not produce such a paper...not to worry...there are none.

 

[SSDD]

You aren't obligated to say what formula applies to a cold sphere radiating in a room?

If the room is colder than the sphere, then use the S-B equation...if the surrounding space is warmer than the sphere, refer to Newton's law of cooling. Already gave you the answers...sorry you don't recognize them. Of course, I gave them to you in the form of equations and you obviously can't read an equation.

 

[jc456]

I say that. You can’t prove otherwise. Why?

I say that.

You say energy only moves one way. And you can't post proof.
That's why we laugh at you.

Sure I can. 2nd law, Every experiment is one way. You can just post up that two way flow for us.

So post your proof already.

I did, 2nd law. Prove cold moves to hot. Still waiting . Grasp is difficult for you eh?

The 2nd Law doesn't prove your claim.

Are you not posting your proof because you don't have any?
Because none exists?
Or because you're too stupid to find any?

Disprove the second law graspy not! Still waiting

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I say that.

You say energy only moves one way. And you can't post proof.
That's why we laugh at you.

Sure I can. 2nd law, Every experiment is one way. You can just post up that two way flow for us.

So post your proof already.

I did, 2nd law. Prove cold moves to hot. Still waiting . Grasp is difficult for you eh?

The 2nd Law doesn't prove your claim.

Are you not posting your proof because you don't have any?
Because none exists?
Or because you're too stupid to find any?

Disprove the second law graspy not! Still waiting

Why would I try to disprove the 2nd Law?

What works better for you, smart photons, smart emitters or photon repelling "covailent" force fields?

 

[toobfreak]

This OP demonstrates the willful ignorance that cannot possibly be overcome.

There, that didn't take long. All but 5 minutes for the first Leftard to come up to the base with another ad hominem attack while offering NOTHING to actually support HIS position.

 

[jc456]

Sure I can. 2nd law, Every experiment is one way. You can just post up that two way flow for us.

So post your proof already.

I did, 2nd law. Prove cold moves to hot. Still waiting . Grasp is difficult for you eh?

The 2nd Law doesn't prove your claim.

Are you not posting your proof because you don't have any?
Because none exists?
Or because you're too stupid to find any?

Disprove the second law graspy not! Still waiting

Why would I try to disprove the 2nd Law?

What works better for you, smart photons, smart emitters or photon repelling "covailent" force fields?

The law that says hot emits towards cold. Only!! One way flow. Again, feel free to prove two way with observed empirical evidence! Otherwise, No evidence

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So post your proof already.

I did, 2nd law. Prove cold moves to hot. Still waiting . Grasp is difficult for you eh?

The 2nd Law doesn't prove your claim.

Are you not posting your proof because you don't have any?
Because none exists?
Or because you're too stupid to find any?

Disprove the second law graspy not! Still waiting

Why would I try to disprove the 2nd Law?

What works better for you, smart photons, smart emitters or photon repelling "covailent" force fields?

The law that says hot emits towards cold. Only!! One way flow. Again, feel free to prove two way with observed empirical evidence! Otherwise, No evidence

The law that says hot emits towards cold. Only!! One way flow.

You're lying.
It doesn't say photons can only go in one direction.
Liar.