Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[jc456]

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?

LBJ

 

[jc456]

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.

.

What we’re saying is you have no observed empirical data to say that

 

[SSDD]

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.

.

You admit yourself that the SB law comes directly from Planck's law...Planck doesn't deal with 2 way energy movement and neither does SB...

Weasel on Garth.....

 

[SSDD]

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.

.

They all obey the second law which says that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

.

They all obey the second law which says that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction..

Admit it, there are no spontaneous emitters you can list, so energy is allowed to move in any and all directions with no restrictions.

 

[jc456]

Irre

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.

.

They all obey the second law which says that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction..

Admit it, there are no spontaneous emitters you can list, so energy is allowed to move in any and all directions with no restrictions.

c, got that definition yet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Irre

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.

.

They all obey the second law which says that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction..

Admit it, there are no spontaneous emitters you can list, so energy is allowed to move in any and all directions with no restrictions.

c, got that definition yet?

The definition I posted must not have helped your silly misunderstanding.

 

[jc456]

Irre

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.

.

They all obey the second law which says that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction..

Admit it, there are no spontaneous emitters you can list, so energy is allowed to move in any and all directions with no restrictions.

c, got that definition yet?

The definition I posted must not have helped your silly misunderstanding.

Which post #?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Irre

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

.

They all obey the second law which says that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction..

Admit it, there are no spontaneous emitters you can list, so energy is allowed to move in any and all directions with no restrictions.

c, got that definition yet?

The definition I posted must not have helped your silly misunderstanding.

Which post #?

 

[jc456]

Irre

They all obey the second law which says that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction..

Admit it, there are no spontaneous emitters you can list, so energy is allowed to move in any and all directions with no restrictions.

c, got that definition yet?

The definition I posted must not have helped your silly misunderstanding.

Which post #?

View attachment 272173

Then yes didn’t see that. So if energy is irreversible how does cold flow to warm?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Irre

Admit it, there are no spontaneous emitters you can list, so energy is allowed to move in any and all directions with no restrictions.

c, got that definition yet?

The definition I posted must not have helped your silly misunderstanding.

Which post #?

View attachment 272173

Then yes didn’t see that. So if energy is irreversible how does cold flow to warm?

You'll have to post the definition that says, "energy is irreversible".

 

[jc456]

Irre
c, got that definition yet?

The definition I posted must not have helped your silly misunderstanding.

Which post #?

View attachment 272173

Then yes didn’t see that. So if energy is irreversible how does cold flow to warm?

You'll have to post the definition that says, "energy is irreversible".

2nd law is about energy, you should read it

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The definition I posted must not have helped your silly misunderstanding.

Which post #?

View attachment 272173

Then yes didn’t see that. So if energy is irreversible how does cold flow to warm?

You'll have to post the definition that says, "energy is irreversible".

2nd law is about energy, you should read it

Reading it doesn't help your claim.

 

[Wuwei]

You admit yourself that the SB law comes directly from Planck's law...Planck doesn't deal with 2 way energy movement and neither does SB...

Yes they do. You haven't been doing your required reading. Planck's law is about an ideal black body which is both an ideal absorber and .and ideal emitter.

If the body is not ideal, then an emissivity is in the formula which relates how it is diminished as both an absorber and emitter.

The SB law shows that. We already gave you the derivation from Dartmouth University.

.

 

[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.

.

They all obey the second law which says that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction..

Yes physicists believe that both conduction and radiation obey the second law. But they do involve different aspects of physics in how the energy flow is manifested, but you indicated that you thought they were the same.

.

 

[jc456]

Which post #?

View attachment 272173

Then yes didn’t see that. So if energy is irreversible how does cold flow to warm?

You'll have to post the definition that says, "energy is irreversible".

2nd law is about energy, you should read it

Reading it doesn't help your claim.

I claimed nothing

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 272173

Then yes didn’t see that. So if energy is irreversible how does cold flow to warm?

You'll have to post the definition that says, "energy is irreversible".

2nd law is about energy, you should read it

Reading it doesn't help your claim.

I claimed nothing

You never claimed the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann?

You never claimed that irreversible means Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong about emissions?

That's a relief.​

 

[jc456]

Then yes didn’t see that. So if energy is irreversible how does cold flow to warm?

You'll have to post the definition that says, "energy is irreversible".

2nd law is about energy, you should read it

Reading it doesn't help your claim.

I claimed nothing

You never claimed the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann?

You never claimed that irreversible means Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong about emissions?

That's a relief.​

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You'll have to post the definition that says, "energy is irreversible".

2nd law is about energy, you should read it

Reading it doesn't help your claim.

I claimed nothing

You never claimed the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann?

You never claimed that irreversible means Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong about emissions?

That's a relief.​

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Why do you feel that conficts at all with Stefan-Boltzmann?

 

[jc456]

2nd law is about energy, you should read it

Reading it doesn't help your claim.

I claimed nothing

You never claimed the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann?

You never claimed that irreversible means Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong about emissions?

That's a relief.​

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Why do you feel that conficts at all with Stefan-Boltzmann?

Never said it did