No Evidence

[jc456]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: 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.

Which part of that statement do you think I am contesting?

That wording is fine if the word Energy is understood to be net energy as every physicist knows.

What you call "modern" physics is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...

Yes, we know you don't believe in modern physics. But that is no argument that carries any weight here.

So you say...and yet, you can't measure a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool body to a warm body unless you cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the cool body....and then you are only measuring it moving to the cooled instrument...not to the warmer object.

Au contraire, discrete wavelengths of energy have been measured moving from a cool body to a warm body without a cooled instrument. Remember you even said yourself that the 2.7⁰K CMB is black body radiation and discrete resonant frequencies were measured after hitting the warm antenna and focused a 4⁰K resonant detector. Don't you remember?

Everyone knows photons in an earthly environment can only be impeded by hitting matter. The temperature of the matter doesn't matter. This was already shown by many different examples.

.

well actually the argument is that you haven't, nor anyone in here provided an observable, measurable,testable mathematical model...why?

 

[jc456]

A rock will only spontaneously fall down a hill. But something put the rock on top of the hill. At some point there was always energy used to create the conditions for a spontaneous event.

wow. the stupid in this statement is grand indeed.

Yo Frank, the only way a rock is on a hill is if someone put the rock on the hill.

 

[jc456]

The entire universe got started at the top of a very big hill.

god? dude, that doesn't make a lick of sense. but thanks for again demonstrating your stupid.

 

[jc456]

So the wording is fine so long as it doesn't have to mean what it says? Got it.. Let me know when they change the words to mean what you and "every other physicist" wish it said.

From the hyperphysics site.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

Belief in a model is fine so long as its predictions have been observed and tested against reality...alas, yours have not.

Liar. All predictions of QM have been observed. But you still think it's fairy dust.

A resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB...it is tragic that your whole premise lies upon such a misunderstanding....Why do you believe that is the only instance of energy movement from cool to warm that you can find? Why are there not measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy moving from cool to warm in practically every instance of energy supposedly moving from cool to warm? If, in fact energy moved freely from cool to warm, you could provide any number of observations rather than one tragic misunderstanding on your part.

You are lying again. These examples of observations or measurements of photons from a cold source hitting a warmer object have been given to you many times.

Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.​

.

And "everyone" knows that the Emperor's new clothes are absolutely stunning...let me know when you can show me some samples of the fabric.

Your idiocy is absolutely stunning. Not only are your beliefs idiotic, but you stoop to the stupidest rational to support your idiocy. You are not fooling anyone.

from your own quoted material..

"but the nettransfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot. that the only spontaneous process is hot to cold. sorry, your own quote backs SSDD and myself. funny.

 

[Crick]

What do you think the term "net transfer" means?

Webster: (Entry 3 of 5) 1 : free from all charges or deductions: such as. a : remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss net earnings net worth — compare gross. b : excluding all tare net weight.

Dictionary.com: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross): (of weight) after deduction of tare, tret, or both.

 

[SSDD]

From the hyperphysics site.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

Opinion...not based on anything stated in the physical laws...not based on the equations associated with the physical laws...not based on any observed, measured experiment...entirely an artifact of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.​

Liar. All predictions of QM have been observed. But you still think it's fairy dust.

Really? Got any actual observation, or measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement between objects of different temperatures?

You are lying again. These examples of observations or measurements of photons from a cold source hitting a warmer object have been given to you many times.

Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.​

And none of those are spontaneous...no matter how much you wish they were. Already been through all of them...and none of them represent spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm...if they did, then the second law of thermodynamics would have been changed,​

.

Your idiocy is absolutely stunning. Not only are your beliefs idiotic, but you stoop to the stupidest rational to support your idiocy. You are not fooling anyone.

No samples of the fabric huh...not surprising.

 

[jc456]

What do you think the term "net transfer" means?

Webster: (Entry 3 of 5) 1 : free from all charges or deductions: such as. a : remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss net earnings net worth — compare gross. b : excluding all tare net weight.

Dictionary.com: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross): (of weight) after deduction of tare, tret, or both.

what are the big words in the statement? I'll highlight them. I give two shits net transfer comment, the important words are in bold..

"but the nettransfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Nowhere does it say spontaneous cold to hot. nowhere.

Wow.

 

[IanC]

What do you think the term "net transfer" means?

Webster: (Entry 3 of 5) 1 : free from all charges or deductions: such as. a : remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss net earnings net worth — compare gross. b : excluding all tare net weight.

Dictionary.com: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross): (of weight) after deduction of tare, tret, or both.

Thanks, I haven't learn a new word in a while.

TRET- an allowance of extra weight made to purchasers of certain goods to compensate for waste during transportation

 

[Crick]

You're welcome, but the definitions were for JC.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the wording is fine so long as it doesn't have to mean what it says? Got it.. Let me know when they change the words to mean what you and "every other physicist" wish it said.

From the hyperphysics site.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

Belief in a model is fine so long as its predictions have been observed and tested against reality...alas, yours have not.

Liar. All predictions of QM have been observed. But you still think it's fairy dust.

A resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB...it is tragic that your whole premise lies upon such a misunderstanding....Why do you believe that is the only instance of energy movement from cool to warm that you can find? Why are there not measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy moving from cool to warm in practically every instance of energy supposedly moving from cool to warm? If, in fact energy moved freely from cool to warm, you could provide any number of observations rather than one tragic misunderstanding on your part.

You are lying again. These examples of observations or measurements of photons from a cold source hitting a warmer object have been given to you many times.

Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.​

.

And "everyone" knows that the Emperor's new clothes are absolutely stunning...let me know when you can show me some samples of the fabric.

Your idiocy is absolutely stunning. Not only are your beliefs idiotic, but you stoop to the stupidest rational to support your idiocy. You are not fooling anyone.

from your own quoted material..

"but the nettransfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot. that the only spontaneous process is hot to cold. sorry, your own quote backs SSDD and myself. funny.

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot

Net.

 

[jc456]

So the wording is fine so long as it doesn't have to mean what it says? Got it.. Let me know when they change the words to mean what you and "every other physicist" wish it said.

From the hyperphysics site.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

Belief in a model is fine so long as its predictions have been observed and tested against reality...alas, yours have not.

Liar. All predictions of QM have been observed. But you still think it's fairy dust.

A resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB...it is tragic that your whole premise lies upon such a misunderstanding....Why do you believe that is the only instance of energy movement from cool to warm that you can find? Why are there not measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy moving from cool to warm in practically every instance of energy supposedly moving from cool to warm? If, in fact energy moved freely from cool to warm, you could provide any number of observations rather than one tragic misunderstanding on your part.

You are lying again. These examples of observations or measurements of photons from a cold source hitting a warmer object have been given to you many times.

Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.​

.

And "everyone" knows that the Emperor's new clothes are absolutely stunning...let me know when you can show me some samples of the fabric.

Your idiocy is absolutely stunning. Not only are your beliefs idiotic, but you stoop to the stupidest rational to support your idiocy. You are not fooling anyone.

from your own quoted material..

"but the nettransfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot. that the only spontaneous process is hot to cold. sorry, your own quote backs SSDD and myself. funny.

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot

Net.

spontaneous

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the wording is fine so long as it doesn't have to mean what it says? Got it.. Let me know when they change the words to mean what you and "every other physicist" wish it said.

From the hyperphysics site.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

Belief in a model is fine so long as its predictions have been observed and tested against reality...alas, yours have not.

Liar. All predictions of QM have been observed. But you still think it's fairy dust.

A resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB...it is tragic that your whole premise lies upon such a misunderstanding....Why do you believe that is the only instance of energy movement from cool to warm that you can find? Why are there not measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy moving from cool to warm in practically every instance of energy supposedly moving from cool to warm? If, in fact energy moved freely from cool to warm, you could provide any number of observations rather than one tragic misunderstanding on your part.

You are lying again. These examples of observations or measurements of photons from a cold source hitting a warmer object have been given to you many times.

Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.​

.

And "everyone" knows that the Emperor's new clothes are absolutely stunning...let me know when you can show me some samples of the fabric.

Your idiocy is absolutely stunning. Not only are your beliefs idiotic, but you stoop to the stupidest rational to support your idiocy. You are not fooling anyone.

from your own quoted material..

"but the nettransfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot. that the only spontaneous process is hot to cold. sorry, your own quote backs SSDD and myself. funny.

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot

Net.

spontaneous

Because there is no restriction.

 

[jc456]

So the wording is fine so long as it doesn't have to mean what it says? Got it.. Let me know when they change the words to mean what you and "every other physicist" wish it said.

From the hyperphysics site.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

Belief in a model is fine so long as its predictions have been observed and tested against reality...alas, yours have not.

Liar. All predictions of QM have been observed. But you still think it's fairy dust.

A resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB...it is tragic that your whole premise lies upon such a misunderstanding....Why do you believe that is the only instance of energy movement from cool to warm that you can find? Why are there not measurements of discrete wavelengths of energy moving from cool to warm in practically every instance of energy supposedly moving from cool to warm? If, in fact energy moved freely from cool to warm, you could provide any number of observations rather than one tragic misunderstanding on your part.

You are lying again. These examples of observations or measurements of photons from a cold source hitting a warmer object have been given to you many times.

Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.​

.

And "everyone" knows that the Emperor's new clothes are absolutely stunning...let me know when you can show me some samples of the fabric.

Your idiocy is absolutely stunning. Not only are your beliefs idiotic, but you stoop to the stupidest rational to support your idiocy. You are not fooling anyone.

from your own quoted material..

"but the nettransfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot. that the only spontaneous process is hot to cold. sorry, your own quote backs SSDD and myself. funny.

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot

Net.

spontaneous

Because there is no restriction.

Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Patty cake, patty cake, pat,pat,pat patty cake, patty cake!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From the hyperphysics site.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

Liar. All predictions of QM have been observed. But you still think it's fairy dust.

You are lying again. These examples of observations or measurements of photons from a cold source hitting a warmer object have been given to you many times.

Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.​

.
Your idiocy is absolutely stunning. Not only are your beliefs idiotic, but you stoop to the stupidest rational to support your idiocy. You are not fooling anyone.

from your own quoted material..

"but the nettransfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot. that the only spontaneous process is hot to cold. sorry, your own quote backs SSDD and myself. funny.

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot

Net.

spontaneous

Because there is no restriction.

Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Patty cake, patty cake, pat,pat,pat patty cake, patty cake!!!

Exactly!

Why did it take you so long to get a clue?

 

[jc456]

from your own quoted material..

"but the nettransfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot. that the only spontaneous process is hot to cold. sorry, your own quote backs SSDD and myself. funny.

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot

Net.

spontaneous

Because there is no restriction.

Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Patty cake, patty cake, pat,pat,pat patty cake, patty cake!!!

Exactly!

Why did it take you so long to get a clue?

too fking funny. this discussion has been all about spontaneous. sorry. no one, not even myself said otherwise. so you're a bit lost there bubba. patty cake

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

this is stating that cold does not flow to hot

Net.

spontaneous

Because there is no restriction.

Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Patty cake, patty cake, pat,pat,pat patty cake, patty cake!!!

Exactly!

Why did it take you so long to get a clue?

too fking funny. this discussion has been all about spontaneous. sorry. no one, not even myself said otherwise. so you're a bit lost there bubba. patty cake

Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Without work, net transfer is to the cool object.

Welcome to the party, pal.

 

[jc456]

spontaneous

Because there is no restriction.

Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Patty cake, patty cake, pat,pat,pat patty cake, patty cake!!!

Exactly!

Why did it take you so long to get a clue?

too fking funny. this discussion has been all about spontaneous. sorry. no one, not even myself said otherwise. so you're a bit lost there bubba. patty cake

Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Without work, net transfer is to the cool object.

Welcome to the party, pal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because there is no restriction.

Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Patty cake, patty cake, pat,pat,pat patty cake, patty cake!!!

Exactly!

Why did it take you so long to get a clue?

too fking funny. this discussion has been all about spontaneous. sorry. no one, not even myself said otherwise. so you're a bit lost there bubba. patty cake

Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Without work, net transfer is to the cool object.

Welcome to the party, pal.

You.....still not admitting your error. LOL!

 

[jc456]

Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Patty cake, patty cake, pat,pat,pat patty cake, patty cake!!!

Exactly!

Why did it take you so long to get a clue?

too fking funny. this discussion has been all about spontaneous. sorry. no one, not even myself said otherwise. so you're a bit lost there bubba. patty cake

Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Without work, net transfer is to the cool object.

Welcome to the party, pal.

You.....still not admitting your error. LOL!

never made an error.

 

[Wuwei]

Opinion...not based on anything stated in the physical laws...not based on the equations associated with the physical laws...not based on any observed, measured experiment...entirely an artifact of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

So now physics is opinion. What an idiot.

Really? Got any actual observation, or measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement between objects of different temperatures?

I gave you them. Read about it.

And none of those are spontaneous...no matter how much you wish they were. Already been through all of them...and none of them represent spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm...if they did, then the second law of thermodynamics would have been changed,

More crap from you. They all are spontaneous events. Read about it. It's physics. The second law does not need changing. It allows spontaneous non incandescent EM flow to warmer objects. It has been observed and measured. Your smart photons disobey several observed and measured laws of physics. But of course you don't believe physics.




.