Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

yes it has, when that matter is around warmer matter.

Ice radiates around warmer matter. Yes.
Don't tell SSDD that you disagree with his silly claim.
Thanks.

made an error in my post, I meant colder. then I agree.

The 2nd law of physics explains that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects? Prove it.

Still waiting.

the experiments within the formation of the 2nd law states that heat flows to cold. here, simple experiment.

By the way, throw ice in a glass of water, the water gets colder, not warmer, therefore the liquid loses heat to the ice, the ice then melts.

the experiments within the formation of the 2nd law states that heat flows to cold.

Ummm...thanks.

Now are you going to post your proof that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects or not?

why would I do that when experiments already show cold things get warm when around warm, and the warm doesn't increase? I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object! go!!

why would I do that

Why would you post proof for your silly claim? Good question. DURR.

I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object!

Since I've never made that strawman claim, why would I be interested in posting evidence?

 

[jc456]

made an error in my post, I meant colder. then I agree.

The 2nd law of physics explains that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects? Prove it.

Still waiting.

the experiments within the formation of the 2nd law states that heat flows to cold. here, simple experiment.

By the way, throw ice in a glass of water, the water gets colder, not warmer, therefore the liquid loses heat to the ice, the ice then melts.

the experiments within the formation of the 2nd law states that heat flows to cold.

Ummm...thanks.

Now are you going to post your proof that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects or not?

why would I do that when experiments already show cold things get warm when around warm, and the warm doesn't increase? I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object! go!!

why would I do that

Why would you post proof for your silly claim? Good question. DURR.

I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object!

Since I've never made that strawman claim, why would I be interested in posting evidence?

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time. therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer. your statement, not mine.

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding as per all physics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 2nd law of physics explains that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects? Prove it.

Still waiting.

the experiments within the formation of the 2nd law states that heat flows to cold. here, simple experiment.

By the way, throw ice in a glass of water, the water gets colder, not warmer, therefore the liquid loses heat to the ice, the ice then melts.

the experiments within the formation of the 2nd law states that heat flows to cold.

Ummm...thanks.

Now are you going to post your proof that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects or not?

why would I do that when experiments already show cold things get warm when around warm, and the warm doesn't increase? I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object! go!!

why would I do that

Why would you post proof for your silly claim? Good question. DURR.

I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object!

Since I've never made that strawman claim, why would I be interested in posting evidence?

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time. therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer. your statement, not mine.

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding as per all physics.

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time.

That's what Stefan-Boltzmann says. Post your proof otherwise.

therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer.

Why do you feel that? Is it because you don't understand the math?

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding

Your claim conflicts with the clear statement that energy emitted is only proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

If you have proof that emissions are changed by the surroundings, you should publish.

Maybe run it by Dr. Raeder first?

 

[jc456]

the experiments within the formation of the 2nd law states that heat flows to cold. here, simple experiment.

By the way, throw ice in a glass of water, the water gets colder, not warmer, therefore the liquid loses heat to the ice, the ice then melts.

the experiments within the formation of the 2nd law states that heat flows to cold.

Ummm...thanks.

Now are you going to post your proof that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects or not?

why would I do that when experiments already show cold things get warm when around warm, and the warm doesn't increase? I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object! go!!

why would I do that

Why would you post proof for your silly claim? Good question. DURR.

I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object!

Since I've never made that strawman claim, why would I be interested in posting evidence?

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time. therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer. your statement, not mine.

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding as per all physics.

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time.

That's what Stefan-Boltzmann says. Post your proof otherwise.

therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer.

Why do you feel that? Is it because you don't understand the math?

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding

View attachment 271049

Your claim conflicts with the clear statement that energy emitted is only proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

If you have proof that emissions are changed by the surroundings, you should publish.

Maybe run it by Dr. Raeder first?

I have, you ignored it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the experiments within the formation of the 2nd law states that heat flows to cold.

Ummm...thanks.

Now are you going to post your proof that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects or not?

why would I do that when experiments already show cold things get warm when around warm, and the warm doesn't increase? I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object! go!!

why would I do that

Why would you post proof for your silly claim? Good question. DURR.

I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object!

Since I've never made that strawman claim, why would I be interested in posting evidence?

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time. therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer. your statement, not mine.

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding as per all physics.

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time.

That's what Stefan-Boltzmann says. Post your proof otherwise.

therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer.

Why do you feel that? Is it because you don't understand the math?

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding

View attachment 271049

Your claim conflicts with the clear statement that energy emitted is only proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

If you have proof that emissions are changed by the surroundings, you should publish.

Maybe run it by Dr. Raeder first?

I have, you ignored it.

Wow. If you've found a flaw in Stefan-Boltzmann, you're a sure Nobel winner.

 

[Crick]

\

therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer.

You missed a crucial point JC. ALL matter radiates dependent on its temperature. The warm object IS receiving energy from the colder object. But it is also radiating and, due to its higher temperature, doing so at a higher rate than the cooler mass and therefore is giving up energy faster than it is receiving it. It does NOT get warmer.

 

[jc456]

why would I do that when experiments already show cold things get warm when around warm, and the warm doesn't increase? I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object! go!!

why would I do that

Why would you post proof for your silly claim? Good question. DURR.

I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object!

Since I've never made that strawman claim, why would I be interested in posting evidence?

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time. therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer. your statement, not mine.

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding as per all physics.

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time.

That's what Stefan-Boltzmann says. Post your proof otherwise.

therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer.

Why do you feel that? Is it because you don't understand the math?

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding

View attachment 271049

Your claim conflicts with the clear statement that energy emitted is only proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

If you have proof that emissions are changed by the surroundings, you should publish.

Maybe run it by Dr. Raeder first?

I have, you ignored it.

Wow. If you've found a flaw in Stefan-Boltzmann, you're a sure Nobel winner.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes,[1] the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.[2]"

irreversible in the thermodynamic sense.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The 2nd law of physics explains that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects? Prove it.

Ok Toad;

Tell us how less energetic particles affect a more energetic mass. I'll wait...

Its not detection you moron, its how the mass reacts to cooler particles hitting it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

why would I do that

Why would you post proof for your silly claim? Good question. DURR.

I'm asking you for the evidence the warm thing gets warmer when near a cold object!

Since I've never made that strawman claim, why would I be interested in posting evidence?

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time. therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer. your statement, not mine.

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding as per all physics.

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time.

That's what Stefan-Boltzmann says. Post your proof otherwise.

therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer.

Why do you feel that? Is it because you don't understand the math?

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding

View attachment 271049

Your claim conflicts with the clear statement that energy emitted is only proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

If you have proof that emissions are changed by the surroundings, you should publish.

Maybe run it by Dr. Raeder first?

I have, you ignored it.

Wow. If you've found a flaw in Stefan-Boltzmann, you're a sure Nobel winner.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes,[1] the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.[2]"

irreversible in the thermodynamic sense.

If you've found a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann, you should definitely publish!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 2nd law of physics explains that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects? Prove it.

Ok Toad;

Tell us how less energetic particles affect a more energetic mass. I'll wait...

Its not detection you moron, its how the mass reacts to cooler particles hitting it.

Tell us how less energetic particles affect a more energetic mass. I'll wait...

Sure. First I need to know the mass of a mole of cooler photons. I'll wait...

Its not detection

SSDD "knows" that emitters "dial down" their emissions, based on the temperature of nearby, cooler matter.
Cooler matter that he "knows" can't emit toward the warmer matter.
So, how do you detect the temperature of matter that doesn't emit toward your sensor?

 

[jc456]

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time. therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer. your statement, not mine.

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding as per all physics.

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time.

That's what Stefan-Boltzmann says. Post your proof otherwise.

therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer.

Why do you feel that? Is it because you don't understand the math?

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding

View attachment 271049

Your claim conflicts with the clear statement that energy emitted is only proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

If you have proof that emissions are changed by the surroundings, you should publish.

Maybe run it by Dr. Raeder first?

I have, you ignored it.

Wow. If you've found a flaw in Stefan-Boltzmann, you're a sure Nobel winner.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes,[1] the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.[2]"

irreversible in the thermodynamic sense.

If you've found a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann, you should definitely publish!!

I didn’t add a word, seems it’s you with the conflict

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

sure you did, you said all things radiate all the time.

That's what Stefan-Boltzmann says. Post your proof otherwise.

therefore, if a cold object radiates to a warm object, the warm object should get warmer.

Why do you feel that? Is it because you don't understand the math?

i said all things radiate, but dependent on it's surrounding

View attachment 271049

Your claim conflicts with the clear statement that energy emitted is only proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

If you have proof that emissions are changed by the surroundings, you should publish.

Maybe run it by Dr. Raeder first?

I have, you ignored it.

Wow. If you've found a flaw in Stefan-Boltzmann, you're a sure Nobel winner.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes,[1] the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.[2]"

irreversible in the thermodynamic sense.

If you've found a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann, you should definitely publish!!

I didn’t add a word, seems it’s you with the conflict

You also didn't explain why you think the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann.

So be specific....spell it out. And if you're the only person who noticed, get ready to be famous!!!!

If everybody knew about the conflict, post some examples.

 

[jc456]

I have, you ignored it.

Wow. If you've found a flaw in Stefan-Boltzmann, you're a sure Nobel winner.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes,[1] the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.[2]"

irreversible in the thermodynamic sense.

If you've found a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann, you should definitely publish!!

I didn’t add a word, seems it’s you with the conflict

You also didn't explain why you think the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann.

So be specific....spell it out. And if you're the only person who noticed, get ready to be famous!!!!

If everybody knew about the conflict, post some examples.

Done! I posted the 2nd law. I’m waiting on your counterpoint you keep avoiding

 

[Crick]

The 2nd law of physics explains that objects can detect the temperature of nearby objects? Prove it.

Ok Toad;

Tell us how less energetic particles affect a more energetic mass. I'll wait...

Its not detection you moron, its how the mass reacts to cooler particles hitting it.

Please explain to us the mechanism by which the temperature of a receiving mass prevents the absorption of lower 'temperature' photons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow. If you've found a flaw in Stefan-Boltzmann, you're a sure Nobel winner.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes,[1] the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.[2]"

irreversible in the thermodynamic sense.

If you've found a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann, you should definitely publish!!

I didn’t add a word, seems it’s you with the conflict

You also didn't explain why you think the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann.

So be specific....spell it out. And if you're the only person who noticed, get ready to be famous!!!!

If everybody knew about the conflict, post some examples.

Done! I posted the 2nd law. I’m waiting on your counterpoint you keep avoiding

I posted the 2nd law.

I don't see a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann.

If you do, spell it out in detail.

 

[jc456]

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes,[1] the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.[2]"

irreversible in the thermodynamic sense.

If you've found a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann, you should definitely publish!!

I didn’t add a word, seems it’s you with the conflict

You also didn't explain why you think the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann.

So be specific....spell it out. And if you're the only person who noticed, get ready to be famous!!!!

If everybody knew about the conflict, post some examples.

Done! I posted the 2nd law. I’m waiting on your counterpoint you keep avoiding

I posted the 2nd law.

I don't see a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann.

If you do, spell it out in detail.

Look up the word irreversible

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you've found a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann, you should definitely publish!!

I didn’t add a word, seems it’s you with the conflict

You also didn't explain why you think the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann.

So be specific....spell it out. And if you're the only person who noticed, get ready to be famous!!!!

If everybody knew about the conflict, post some examples.

Done! I posted the 2nd law. I’m waiting on your counterpoint you keep avoiding

I posted the 2nd law.

I don't see a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann.

If you do, spell it out in detail.

Look up the word irreversible

 

[jc456]

I didn’t add a word, seems it’s you with the conflict

You also didn't explain why you think the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann.

So be specific....spell it out. And if you're the only person who noticed, get ready to be famous!!!!

If everybody knew about the conflict, post some examples.

Done! I posted the 2nd law. I’m waiting on your counterpoint you keep avoiding

I posted the 2nd law.

I don't see a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann.

If you do, spell it out in detail.

Look up the word irreversible

View attachment 271345

No irreversible

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You also didn't explain why you think the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann.

So be specific....spell it out. And if you're the only person who noticed, get ready to be famous!!!!

If everybody knew about the conflict, post some examples.

Done! I posted the 2nd law. I’m waiting on your counterpoint you keep avoiding

I posted the 2nd law.

I don't see a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann.

If you do, spell it out in detail.

Look up the word irreversible

View attachment 271345

No irreversible

If you think irreversible means the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann.....explain why.

 

[jc456]

Done! I posted the 2nd law. I’m waiting on your counterpoint you keep avoiding

I posted the 2nd law.

I don't see a conflict between the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann.

If you do, spell it out in detail.

Look up the word irreversible

View attachment 271345

No irreversible

If you think irreversible means the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann.....explain why.

So you don’t do definitions? The word is irreversible, it will answer your question