Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

If you think the word irreversible refutes Stefan-Boltzmann, you'll have to explain your "logic".

 

[SSDD]

You can't even get the basics right...which is why you are wrong on everything else...you base everything you think you know on very fundamental misunderstandings...the sort of flawed thinking that leads you to believe a flashlight represents spontaneous movement of energy..

More feigned bluster.
A battery discharging through a conductor is spontaneous. Try Googling is a voltaic cell spontaneous. Yes I know you think nothing on earth is spontaneous but look it up anyway so you know what scientists think.

Entropy is concerned with the dispersal of energy...and energy only moves spontaneously in one direction.

Your first sentence is true, but your second sentence is ambiguous..


.

Sorry goob.....there is nothing spontaneous about a battery..

 

[SSDD]

You can use that formula for theoretical perfect black bodies in theoretically perfect vacuums.

It doesn't have to be a perfect black body since emissivity is in the formula.

.use it for anything else anywhere else and you get false data because you used the wrong formula.

That's not what science says. The formula works anywhere. But if you want to know the net radiation you have to subtract out what it is absorbing. Look it up.

.

And there is where your flawed thinking begins...at the most basic level...everything you build on that is flawed because you are wrong at the foundation.. There is no "net" radiation...net energy transfer only exists in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models....the tedium never ends...peddle your religious dogma somewhere else...

 

[SSDD]

You can use that formula for theoretical perfect black bodies in theoretically perfect vacuums.

It doesn't have to be a perfect black body since emissivity is in the formula.

.use it for anything else anywhere else and you get false data because you used the wrong formula.

That's not what science says. The formula works anywhere. But if you want to know the net radiation you have to subtract out what it is absorbing. Look it up.

.

it says black body. why are you lying?

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

"The energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by

"

He lies because lies is all he has...if he had evidence, he wouldn't have to lie.

 

[SSDD]

You can use that formula for theoretical perfect black bodies in theoretically perfect vacuums.

It doesn't have to be a perfect black body since emissivity is in the formula.

.use it for anything else anywhere else and you get false data because you used the wrong formula.

That's not what science says. The formula works anywhere. But if you want to know the net radiation you have to subtract out what it is absorbing. Look it up.

.

it says black body. why are you lying?

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

"The energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by

"

What an idiot.

Carefully look at the P/A = ... formula in post #344.

Carefully compare it to P/A = ... a similar formula you posted in #340.

You will find a difference. What does that difference mean? It will answer your misunderstanding of what "perfect" means in BB radiation. If you still don't understand it, ask Todd. He has more patience with idiots than I do.

.

dude, ideal radiator is a blackbody!!! it's in every post of Todd's durring moments.

Because it doesn't explicitly say "theoretical perfect black bodies" in large crayon letters, he thinks that it doesn't mean that...somehow in his mind, an "ideal radiator" is somehow different from a theoretical perfect black body..

He doesn't realize that by definition the word ideal means "a conception of something in its perfection." He lives and dies by weasel words...in his mind, somehow, theoretical perfect black body and conception of something in its perfection mean different things...they have to otherwise he would have to admit that he is wrong and then what would he have to believe in?

 

[SSDD]

The math idea for the SB law is very simple. It's based on the curve of the black body radiation law (Plank's law) as a function of wavelength. Boltzmann summed up the radiation energy of all wavelengths to come up with the total energy radiated.

Since the Stefan-Boltzmann law comes directly from Planck's law, if you don't believe the SB law, then you don't believe in black body radiation. (Smart photons, anyone?)

.

So lets see the two way version of Planck's law. Lets see where Planck provided expressions for "net" energy flow.. Planck's law describes the flow of energy into a lower (0k) background and not the other way around...

 

[SSDD]

I won't name names, but somebody here doesn't understand that they recently posted a diagram of thermal conduction, not thermal radiation.

.

Like thermal conduction and thermal radiation obey different laws of physics? Which one do you believe gets a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics... Let me guess..whichever one you need to have a special dispensation at any given time.

 

[SSDD]

Sure, post evidence that ice radiates! I know you can’t! I accept your surrender

Sure, post evidence that ice radiates!

View attachment 270915

If you have proof that ice doesn't radiate "proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature" you should post that proof.

I observed the ice didn't radiate, the spoon didn't get warmer. therefore radiation wasn't present from the ice. A math problem is a problem based on observance. so show me the observed ice cube radiating.

Ice does radiate though. That's the whole point.

it will when around a colder object.

Everything is ALWAYS radiating. The only question is to what extent.

According to an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.....according to a misuse of Planck's law and of the SB law...Care to provide a measurement of a discrete wavelength of radiation moving from an ice cube to an object at a warmer temperature not made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the ice cube?

Didn't think so.

 

[jc456]

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

If you think the word irreversible refutes Stefan-Boltzmann, you'll have to explain your "logic".

I never said it did. I suggested you look and post the definition of irreversible. And you have failed now three times. taking direction isn't a strong suit for you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't even get the basics right...which is why you are wrong on everything else...you base everything you think you know on very fundamental misunderstandings...the sort of flawed thinking that leads you to believe a flashlight represents spontaneous movement of energy..

More feigned bluster.
A battery discharging through a conductor is spontaneous. Try Googling is a voltaic cell spontaneous. Yes I know you think nothing on earth is spontaneous but look it up anyway so you know what scientists think.

Entropy is concerned with the dispersal of energy...and energy only moves spontaneously in one direction.

Your first sentence is true, but your second sentence is ambiguous..


.

Sorry goob.....there is nothing spontaneous about a battery..

there is nothing spontaneous about a battery..

Or the Sun. Or the Earth's atmosphere.
That's why back radiation is a thing, because it's not spontaneous. Right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can use that formula for theoretical perfect black bodies in theoretically perfect vacuums.

It doesn't have to be a perfect black body since emissivity is in the formula.

.use it for anything else anywhere else and you get false data because you used the wrong formula.

That's not what science says. The formula works anywhere. But if you want to know the net radiation you have to subtract out what it is absorbing. Look it up.

.

And there is where your flawed thinking begins...at the most basic level...everything you build on that is flawed because you are wrong at the foundation.. There is no "net" radiation...net energy transfer only exists in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models....the tedium never ends...peddle your religious dogma somewhere else...

There is no "net" radiation...net energy transfer only exists in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

You're the only one who thinks that.

It's why you never post any backup to this claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

If you think the word irreversible refutes Stefan-Boltzmann, you'll have to explain your "logic".

I never said it did. I suggested you look and post the definition of irreversible. And you have failed now three times. taking direction isn't a strong suit for you?

I never said it did.

So you posted the 2nd Law to refute my comments about Stefan-Boltzmann....because they agree.

I suggested you look and post the definition of irreversible.

You're right, this does confirm Stefan-Boltzmann, Thanks!
Don't tell SSDD that this refuted his claims.

 

[jc456]

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

If you think the word irreversible refutes Stefan-Boltzmann, you'll have to explain your "logic".

I never said it did. I suggested you look and post the definition of irreversible. And you have failed now three times. taking direction isn't a strong suit for you?

I never said it did.

So you posted the 2nd Law to refute my comments about Stefan-Boltzmann....because they agree.

I suggested you look and post the definition of irreversible.

View attachment 271774

You're right, this does confirm Stefan-Boltzmann, Thanks!
Don't tell SSDD that this refuted his claims.

Irreversible, still waiting on that definition from you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

If you think the word irreversible refutes Stefan-Boltzmann, you'll have to explain your "logic".

I never said it did. I suggested you look and post the definition of irreversible. And you have failed now three times. taking direction isn't a strong suit for you?

I never said it did.

So you posted the 2nd Law to refute my comments about Stefan-Boltzmann....because they agree.

I suggested you look and post the definition of irreversible.

View attachment 271774

You're right, this does confirm Stefan-Boltzmann, Thanks!
Don't tell SSDD that this refuted his claims.

Irreversible, still waiting on that definition from you.

ESL?

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry goob.....there is nothing spontaneous about a battery..

You are denying the entire body of observed, measured, repeatable experiments in physics that were printed in countless lectures, journals, books, and websites.

You have provided absolutely no support from published observed, measured, repeatable experiments that agree with your fake physics.

 

[Wuwei]

And there is where your flawed thinking begins...at the most basic level...everything you build on that is flawed because you are wrong at the foundation.. There is no "net" radiation...net energy transfer only exists in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models....the tedium never ends...peddle your religious dogma somewhere else.

Your religious dogma:
You are denying the entire body of observed, measured, repeatable experiments in physics that were printed in countless lectures, journals, books, and websites.

You have provided absolutely no support from published observed, measured, repeatable experiments that agree with your fake physics.

 

[Wuwei]

He lies because lies is all he has...if he had evidence, he wouldn't have to lie.

You are essentially saying science is lying.
You are denying the entire body of observed, measured, repeatable experiments in physics that were printed in countless lectures, journals, books, and websites.

You have provided absolutely no support from published observed, measured, repeatable experiments that agree with your fake physics.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Because it doesn't explicitly say "theoretical perfect black bodies" in large crayon letters, he thinks that it doesn't mean that...somehow in his mind, an "ideal radiator" is somehow different from a theoretical perfect black body..

He doesn't realize that by definition the word ideal means "a conception of something in its perfection." He lives and dies by weasel words...in his mind, somehow, theoretical perfect black body and conception of something in its perfection mean different things...they have to otherwise he would have to admit that he is wrong and then what would he have to believe in?

You are lying. You didn't carefully look at the P/A = ... formula in post #344.
and carefully compare it to P/A = ... a similar formula in #340.

You will find an omitted emissivity in one. Also the text that goes with formula with emissivity says it's for radiators which aren't ideal. You are not reading for comprehension.

.

 

[Wuwei]

So lets see the two way version of Planck's law. Lets see where Planck provided expressions for "net" energy flow.. Planck's law describes the flow of energy into a lower (0k) background and not the other way around...

Planck's law says nothing about net energy. It is about any object emitting radiation with a black body spectrum in any environment. You are confusing Planck's law with your misunderstanding of the SB law. Try to think a bit more before you post.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Like thermal conduction and thermal radiation obey different laws of physics?

Of course they do. Thermal conduction involves contact at the atomic level and kinetic transfer of energy. Radiation involves non-contact radiative transfer.

Which one do you believe gets a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics.

You are confusing the fact that any thermal flow obeys the overarching principle of the second law. Neither gets dispensation. My God you are confused.

.