No Evidence

[jc456]

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.

Sure it does, I’m still waiting for your evidence to the OP

 

[Wuwei]

You guys who think you know thermodynamics,
Google this: second law of thermodynamics.
Then look at the first page or so that comes up.
You will see a particular word come up in the descriptions on the page.
Entropy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Sure it does, I’m still waiting for your evidence to the OP

Liar, no source, no proof.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Sure it does, I’m still waiting for your evidence to the OP

He apparently thinks that photons are not energy....since the 2nd law states pretty clearly that energy won't flow spontaneously from cold to warm....he has a problem with the word spontaneous as well...guess he doesn't have access to dictionaries...

 

[SSDD]

You guys who think you know thermodynamics,
Google this: second law of thermodynamics.
Then look at the first page or so that comes up.
You will see a particular word come up in the descriptions on the page.
Entropy.

Yeah...entropy...the movement of energy from a more organized state (warm) to a less organized state(cool)...all natural processes are irreversible...meaning that once energy moves from a more ordered state (warm) to a less ordered state( cool) it doesn't go back to a more ordered state unless, of course, you do some work to make it happen.

 

[jc456]

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.

Sure it does, I’m still waiting for your evidence to the OP

He apparently thinks that photons are not energy....since the 2nd law states pretty clearly that energy won't flow spontaneously from cold to warm....he has a problem with the word spontaneous as well...guess he doesn't have access to dictionaries...

he's one of those fks that will never answer and try and flip a scenario to his advantage, yet he fails in here. My proof is the observed. until he can post an observation, as you say, of the two way flow, he's just a loonie on a message board. And he isn't as clever as he thinks. happy new year BTW!!

 

[Wuwei]

Yeah...entropy...the movement of energy from a more organized state (warm) to a less organized state(cool)...all natural processes are irreversible...meaning that once energy moves from a more ordered state (warm) to a less ordered state( cool) it doesn't go back to a more ordered state unless, of course, you do some work to make it happen.

Right. The concept of entropy was first introduced in 1850 by Clausius as a precise mathematical way of testing whether the second law of thermodynamics is violated by a particular process.
( Thermodynamics - Isothermal and adiabatic processes )

An object which is at a temperature different than the background has a specific entropy that can be calculated.

After the object comes to the same temperature as the background and equilibrium is reached, the entropy can again be calculated, and will be higher than before.

The literature focuses on entropy as the definition of the second law. It says nothing about the means of coming to equilibrium and does not deny two-way radiation exchange between an object and background. So you have no choice but to accept radiation exchange as a viable hypothesis. The hypothesis of one-way radiation between objects violates several laws of physics.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah...entropy...the movement of energy from a more organized state (warm) to a less organized state(cool)...all natural processes are irreversible...meaning that once energy moves from a more ordered state (warm) to a less ordered state( cool) it doesn't go back to a more ordered state unless, of course, you do some work to make it happen.

Right. The concept of entropy was first introduced in 1850 by Clausius as a precise mathematical way of testing whether the second law of thermodynamics is violated by a particular process.
( Thermodynamics - Isothermal and adiabatic processes )

An object which is at a temperature different than the background has a specific entropy that can be calculated.

After the object comes to the same temperature as the background and equilibrium is reached, the entropy can again be calculated, and will be higher than before.

The literature focuses on entropy as the definition of the second law. It says nothing about the means of coming to equilibrium and does not deny two-way radiation exchange between an object and background. So you have no choice but to accept radiation exchange as a viable hypothesis. The hypothesis of one-way radiation between objects violates several laws of physics.

But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...and some of us know that all natural processes are irreversible....natural processes like energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....irreversible...do you know what that means?

And the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict...there is no physical law that predicts two way energy flow...but do feel free to name them since you believe that it violates several....this should be good,.. As always, you provide at least a chuckle...and very often...a great big donkey laugh...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah...entropy...the movement of energy from a more organized state (warm) to a less organized state(cool)...all natural processes are irreversible...meaning that once energy moves from a more ordered state (warm) to a less ordered state( cool) it doesn't go back to a more ordered state unless, of course, you do some work to make it happen.

Right. The concept of entropy was first introduced in 1850 by Clausius as a precise mathematical way of testing whether the second law of thermodynamics is violated by a particular process.
( Thermodynamics - Isothermal and adiabatic processes )

An object which is at a temperature different than the background has a specific entropy that can be calculated.

After the object comes to the same temperature as the background and equilibrium is reached, the entropy can again be calculated, and will be higher than before.

The literature focuses on entropy as the definition of the second law. It says nothing about the means of coming to equilibrium and does not deny two-way radiation exchange between an object and background. So you have no choice but to accept radiation exchange as a viable hypothesis. The hypothesis of one-way radiation between objects violates several laws of physics.

But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...and some of us know that all natural processes are irreversible....natural processes like energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....irreversible...do you know what that means?

And the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict...there is no physical law that predicts two way energy flow...but do feel free to name them since you believe that it violates several....this should be good,.. As always, you provide at least a chuckle...and very often...a great big donkey laugh...

But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...

1 : the act of giving or taking one thing in return for another

Definition of EXCHANGE

DURR!

 

[litman]

Since I don't know the background of the first poster on this may I ask what your qualifications are to go against the 97% of scientist that have sent their lives studying world weather. Now I am not a scientist and can't definitely say one way or the other what the weather is doing. So I do what any thinking person would do and that is listen to the scientist that do know. What a concept.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since I don't know the background of the first poster on this may I ask what your qualifications are to go against the 97% of scientist that have sent their lives studying world weather. Now I am not a scientist and can't definitely say one way or the other what the weather is doing. So I do what any thinking person would do and that is listen to the scientist that do know. What a concept.

what your qualifications are to go against the 97% of scientist that have sent their lives studying world weather.

75/77 is a very impressive portion.

 

[jc456]

Since I don't know the background of the first poster on this may I ask what your qualifications are to go against the 97% of scientist that have sent their lives studying world weather. Now I am not a scientist and can't definitely say one way or the other what the weather is doing. So I do what any thinking person would do and that is listen to the scientist that do know. What a concept.

lack of observation and measured evidence

 

[Wuwei]

But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...and some of us know that all natural processes are irreversible....natural processes like energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....irreversible...do you know what that means?

Yes, I know what that means, but do you? Your statement, "But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium." indicates two way exchange of radiation.

And the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict...there is no physical law that predicts two way energy flow...but do feel free to name them since you believe that it violates several....this should be good,.. As always, you provide at least a chuckle.

No laws predict one-way energy flow. The law of Entropy does not forbid it during any process.
Otherwise the BB radiation law would be violated The SB law would be violated. The fact that accelerating charges must radiate would be violated. You already know that and are just being a troll now.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, I know what that means, but do you? Your statement, "But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium." indicates two way exchange of radiation.

No it doesn't...what the hell is wrong with you...Energy moving from warm to cool...till both are the same temperature is what that indicates...two way exchange of radiation doesn't suggest energy moving to the condition of the greatest entropy at all. Two way exchange of radiation indicates energy moving from a less organized state to a more organized state in the case of energy moving from cool to warm...

No laws predict one-way energy flow. The law of Entropy does not forbid it during any process. Otherwise the BB radiation law would be violated The SB law would be violated. The fact that accelerating charges must radiate would be violated. You already know that and are just being a troll now.

You claimed that one way energy flow violated "several" physical laws...which ones? There is no black body radiation law...and there is no accelerating chages law...the second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...that is, by definition, one way energy movment…

So which physical laws does one way energy movement violate? Or were you just making up crap in an attempt to make a point?

 

[Crick]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

 

[SSDD]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

Actually, it says that warmer objects in the presence of cooler objects radiate according to their area, their emissivity, and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

And can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? That should be interesting to see....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

Actually, it says that warmer objects in the presence of cooler objects radiate according to their area, their emissivity, and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

And can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? That should be interesting to see....

and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

You have any backup for your dimmer switch theory?
Explicit backup, not your solo misinterpretation.

 

[SSDD]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

Actually, it says that warmer objects in the presence of cooler objects radiate according to their area, their emissivity, and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

And can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? That should be interesting to see....

and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

You have any backup for your dimmer switch theory?
Explicit backup, not your solo misinterpretation.

I don't need any..you are the one who needs some actual evidence to support your belief in spontaneous two way energy movment…

Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 2 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperature of Tc to 50 degrees...what is P?

The physical law itself supports my position and it is based on observation after observation after observation …..sorry you don't agree with physical laws...and worse, you let people convince you not to believe them without the first piece of evidence to suggest that they were wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

Actually, it says that warmer objects in the presence of cooler objects radiate according to their area, their emissivity, and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

And can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? That should be interesting to see....

and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

You have any backup for your dimmer switch theory?
Explicit backup, not your solo misinterpretation.

I don't need any..you are the one who needs some actual evidence to support your belief in spontaneous two way energy movment…

Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 2 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperature of Tc to 50 degrees...what is P?

The physical law itself supports my position and it is based on observation after observation after observation …..sorry you don't agree with physical laws...and worse, you let people convince you not to believe them without the first piece of evidence to suggest that they were wrong.

I don't need any..

How convenient, because you can't find any.

Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

P = net radiated power.

The physical law itself supports my position

Which is why you have no explicit backup.
No one who ever said, matter radiates less in proximity to other matter.
Or fails to radiate at all, near matter of the same temperature.
Even when separated by billions of light years.

Come on, you must have some college professor you could ask.
Why would they lie to you about something so basic and obvious.

Go for it!!!!

Post their response in this thread.

 

[SSDD]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

Actually, it says that warmer objects in the presence of cooler objects radiate according to their area, their emissivity, and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

And can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? That should be interesting to see....

and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

You have any backup for your dimmer switch theory?
Explicit backup, not your solo misinterpretation.

I don't need any..you are the one who needs some actual evidence to support your belief in spontaneous two way energy movment…

Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 2 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperature of Tc to 50 degrees...what is P?

The physical law itself supports my position and it is based on observation after observation after observation …..sorry you don't agree with physical laws...and worse, you let people convince you not to believe them without the first piece of evidence to suggest that they were wrong.

I don't need any..

How convenient, because you can't find any.

Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

P = net radiated power.

The physical law itself supports my position

Which is why you have no explicit backup.
No one who ever said, matter radiates less in proximity to other matter.
Or fails to radiate at all, near matter of the same temperature.
Even when separated by billions of light years.

Come on, you must have some college professor you could ask.
Why would they lie to you about something so basic and obvious.

Go for it!!!!

Post their response in this thread.

Which expression in that equation do you derive net from? Net has a specific meaning and requires mathematical expressions that it is derived from...which ones in that equation do you think you can derive net from? Just saying it or wishing it doesn't make it real.