Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

The SB equation describes one way energy flow from a radiator to a cooler background.

No it doesn't.

it says nothing about two way energy flow.

Yes it does.

.the onus is upon you guys to prove it wrong.

Already did.

.Set T to the same temperature as TC and P=zero...I have no problem with that.

Of course it's zero.

you on the other hand believe that it is wrong.

Nobody here does except JC

so prove it with some actual evidence.

Stefan already did.

.

Bullshit...If you think your fake SB equation proves anything other than what a wanker you are, you are sadly mistaken.

by the way...did you ever look at what that equation actually says? Of course not...look at the equation after it is reduced...does the final form of that equation look familiar? No expression from which net can be derived there..net is an opinion derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...nothing more...

 

[SSDD]

I doubt that he can handle even math that basic...and even if he could do it, he couldn't bring himself to admit that P=0 when T and Tc are set to the same number..wuwei avoided answering that question for pages and pages and pages..simply couldn't admit that the actual equations from the SB law say that he is wrong...it was simply beyond is ability to accept so he dodged and weaved and weaseled rather than simply state that P = 0...

Total liar. You had pages and pages of lies.

Read the last paragraph 10 times or until it sinks in.

You keep posting that bullshit as if it actually meant something...what you never post is the source...

 

[Wuwei]

You keep posting that bullshit as if it actually meant something...what you never post is the source...

Dartmouth University lecture notes.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf

 

[SSDD]

You keep posting that bullshit as if it actually meant something...what you never post is the source...

Dartmouth University lecture notes.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf

So this is the end of the equation...eσ(T14-T24)


You apparently can't read well enough to realize that the mid point....where they have multiple instances of the SB constant etc is only a mid point in reducing the equation..in the end, they have

An equation with no expression from which to derive net...because the SB equation describes one way energy flow...it is derived from Planck which also describes one way energy flow.. sorry guy.....you lose yet again...the tedium is unbearable...

 

[Wuwei]

Bullshit...If you think your fake SB equation proves anything other than what a wanker you are, you are sadly mistaken.

by the way...did you ever look at what that equation actually says? Of course not...look at the equation after it is reduced...does the final form of that equation look familiar? No expression from which net can be derived there..net is an opinion derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...nothing more...

Here is another source the original Stefan paper.
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf

Look at the top of page 411 of Stefan's paper just under the title, "II. Uber die Bestimmung ......."
Die absolute Grosse der von einem korper ausgestrahlten warmenenge kann durch Versuche nicht bestimmt werden. Versuche konnen nur den uberschuss der von dem korper ausgestrahlten uber die von ihm gleichzeitig absorbirte warmemge geben welch letztere von der ihm aus der umgebung zugestrahlten warme abhangig ist.

This is the translation of the first two sentences

The absolute magnitude of the heat emitted by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of heat radiated by the body over the warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment.

His paper was 1879. You are behind the times.

 

[Wuwei]

So this is the end of the equation...eσ(T14-T24)


You apparently can't read well enough to realize that the mid point....where they have multiple instances of the SB constant etc is only a mid point in reducing the equation..in the end, they have

An equation with no expression from which to derive net...because the SB equation describes one way energy flow...it is derived from Planck which also describes one way energy flow.. sorry guy.....you lose yet again...the tedium is unbearable...

I didn't fabricate the science. It's in all the text books if you don't believe it you don't believe science. Which step in the well known derivation do you disagree?

Pₑ = AƐơ T₁⁴ . . . . . Black body radiation to surround
Pₐ = AƐơ T₂⁴ . . . . . Black body absorption from surround

The net flow is the difference:
Pnet = Pₑ – Pₐ
= AƐơ T₁⁴ - AƐơ T₂⁴
= AƐơ (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You keep posting that bullshit as if it actually meant something...what you never post is the source...

Dartmouth University lecture notes.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf

So this is the end of the equation...eσ(T14-T24)


You apparently can't read well enough to realize that the mid point....where they have multiple instances of the SB constant etc is only a mid point in reducing the equation..in the end, they have

An equation with no expression from which to derive net...because the SB equation describes one way energy flow...it is derived from Planck which also describes one way energy flow.. sorry guy.....you lose yet again...the tedium is unbearable...

An equation with no expression from which to derive net...because the SB equation describes one way energy flow..

No links to anyone else with your "one way only flow" misinterpretation? Weird.

Maybe you should email Dr. Raeder again?

 

[SSDD]

Bullshit...If you think your fake SB equation proves anything other than what a wanker you are, you are sadly mistaken.

by the way...did you ever look at what that equation actually says? Of course not...look at the equation after it is reduced...does the final form of that equation look familiar? No expression from which net can be derived there..net is an opinion derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...nothing more...

Here is another source the original Stefan paper.
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf

Look at the top of page 411 of Stefan's paper just under the title, "II. Uber die Bestimmung ......."
Die absolute Grosse der von einem korper ausgestrahlten warmenenge kann durch Versuche nicht bestimmt werden. Versuche konnen nur den uberschuss der von dem korper ausgestrahlten uber die von ihm gleichzeitig absorbirte warmemge geben welch letztere von der ihm aus der umgebung zugestrahlten warme abhangig ist.

This is the translation of the first two sentences

The absolute magnitude of the heat emitted by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of heat radiated by the body over the warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment.

His paper was 1879. You are behind the times.

Quaint...and years later we are still waiting for an actual observed measurement of this spontaneous two way energy flow...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...nothing more, nothing less

 

[SSDD]

So this is the end of the equation...eσ(T14-T24)


You apparently can't read well enough to realize that the mid point....where they have multiple instances of the SB constant etc is only a mid point in reducing the equation..in the end, they have

An equation with no expression from which to derive net...because the SB equation describes one way energy flow...it is derived from Planck which also describes one way energy flow.. sorry guy.....you lose yet again...the tedium is unbearable...

I didn't fabricate the science. It's in all the text books if you don't believe it you don't believe science. Which step in the well known derivation do you disagree?

Pₑ = AƐơ T₁⁴ . . . . . Black body radiation to surround
Pₐ = AƐơ T₂⁴ . . . . . Black body absorption from surround

The net flow is the difference:
Pnet = Pₑ – Pₐ
= AƐơ T₁⁴ - AƐơ T₂⁴
= AƐơ (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

.

there is no net flow...it only exists in models...only idiots believe otherwise

 

[Wuwei]

Quaint...and years later we are still waiting for an actual observed measurement of this spontaneous two way energy flow...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...nothing more, nothing less

there is no net flow...it only exists in models...only idiots believe otherwise

So, you are calling Stefan and every scientist after him an idiot. Why don't you email Dr Raeder and call him an idiot.

.

 

[jc456]

I said cold objects don’t radiate when next to warmer objects. You said they do. I said nothing more. You think SB shows otherwise, fill in the formula and prove the equation will show the cold object radiates. Go!

I said cold objects don’t radiate when next to warmer objects.

So you are disagreeing with SB. You should post your data. Maybe some sources that agree with you?

Unless you're out there all alone with your buddy?

You said they do.

Obviously, SB.

You think SB shows otherwise, fill in the formula and prove the equation will show the cold object radiates.



E=eA(5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre^2/K^4) * (273.15)^4

still waiting on you to complete the formula for P, when T = Tc

Net is zero, durr.

Email Dr. Raeder yet? LOL!

why? he's your friend, you should talk

My friend? Is that why SSDD used him as a source? LOL!

You’re pushing him. Go for it

 

[jc456]

I said cold objects don’t radiate when next to warmer objects. You said they do. I said nothing more. You think SB shows otherwise, fill in the formula and prove the equation will show the cold object radiates. Go!

I said cold objects don’t radiate when next to warmer objects.

So you are disagreeing with SB. You should post your data. Maybe some sources that agree with you?

Unless you're out there all alone with your buddy?

You said they do.

Obviously, SB.

You think SB shows otherwise, fill in the formula and prove the equation will show the cold object radiates.



E=eA(5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre^2/K^4) * (273.15)^4

still waiting on you to complete the formula for P, when T = Tc

Net is zero, durr.

Email Dr. Raeder yet? LOL!

radiates zero!!! thanks, P = zero. that is the answer right? P=0. unless of course your math zero times something is not zero. go for it Power =0. Say it with me, P=Zero!!!!

BTW, that answer means that SB backs the cold object radiates nothing, zero = nadda in the event you didn't know.

radiates zero!!!

No!!!

that is the answer right? P=0.

Net equals zero.

BTW, that answer means that SB backs the cold object radiates nothing,

SB says matter above 0K radiates. No matter the surrounding conditions.

Zero is zero, the SB is radiates and it’s zero! I don’t care what else you claim. You sir can’t prove it

 

[jc456]

I doubt that he can handle even math that basic...and even if he could do it, he couldn't bring himself to admit that P=0 when T and Tc are set to the same number..wuwei avoided answering that question for pages and pages and pages..simply couldn't admit that the actual equations from the SB law say that he is wrong...it was simply beyond is ability to accept so he dodged and weaved and weaseled rather than simply state that P = 0...

Total liar. You had pages and pages of lies.

Read the last paragraph 10 times or until it sinks in.

t=tc means there is zero radiated in equilibrium. you just can't make yourself say it even though what you just posted does. too fking funny.

I quote "the body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate and it is in equilibrium with the enclosure" t=tc P therefore =zero.

I quote "the body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate and it is in equilibrium with the enclosure"

DURR>>>>>>>>>t=tc means there is zero radiated in equilibrium.

I wish I could make money off your stupidity.

I’m sure you would since you make nothing off yours. Zero is zero

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said cold objects don’t radiate when next to warmer objects.

So you are disagreeing with SB. You should post your data. Maybe some sources that agree with you?

Unless you're out there all alone with your buddy?

You said they do.

Obviously, SB.

You think SB shows otherwise, fill in the formula and prove the equation will show the cold object radiates.



E=eA(5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre^2/K^4) * (273.15)^4

still waiting on you to complete the formula for P, when T = Tc

Net is zero, durr.

Email Dr. Raeder yet? LOL!

radiates zero!!! thanks, P = zero. that is the answer right? P=0. unless of course your math zero times something is not zero. go for it Power =0. Say it with me, P=Zero!!!!

BTW, that answer means that SB backs the cold object radiates nothing, zero = nadda in the event you didn't know.

radiates zero!!!

No!!!

that is the answer right? P=0.

Net equals zero.

BTW, that answer means that SB backs the cold object radiates nothing,

SB says matter above 0K radiates. No matter the surrounding conditions.

Zero is zero, the SB is radiates and it’s zero! I don’t care what else you claim. You sir can’t prove it

Zero is zero,

Yes, net power radiated is zero.

the SB is radiates and it’s zero!

Only if T is zero.

I don’t care what else you claim.

SB claims.

You sir can’t prove it

I have to prove SB? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I doubt that he can handle even math that basic...and even if he could do it, he couldn't bring himself to admit that P=0 when T and Tc are set to the same number..wuwei avoided answering that question for pages and pages and pages..simply couldn't admit that the actual equations from the SB law say that he is wrong...it was simply beyond is ability to accept so he dodged and weaved and weaseled rather than simply state that P = 0...

Total liar. You had pages and pages of lies.

Read the last paragraph 10 times or until it sinks in.

t=tc means there is zero radiated in equilibrium. you just can't make yourself say it even though what you just posted does. too fking funny.

I quote "the body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate and it is in equilibrium with the enclosure" t=tc P therefore =zero.

I quote "the body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate and it is in equilibrium with the enclosure"

DURR>>>>>>>>>t=tc means there is zero radiated in equilibrium.

I wish I could make money off your stupidity.

I’m sure you would since you make nothing off yours. Zero is zero

"the body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate and it is in equilibrium

PRICELESS!!!

 

[SSDD]

Quaint...and years later we are still waiting for an actual observed measurement of this spontaneous two way energy flow...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...nothing more, nothing less

there is no net flow...it only exists in models...only idiots believe otherwise

So, you are calling Stefan and every scientist after him an idiot. Why don't you email Dr Raeder and call him an idiot.

.

I am asking for published, observed, measured examples of spontaneous energy exchange between objects of different temperatures....and don't hand me examples of piss poor scientists being fooled by instrumentation like flacalten who is fooled daily by his home depot IR thermometer, or ian who believes that the thermopiles inside a pyrogeometer know whether the energy causing them to warm is coming from up or down...

Show me published, observed, measured examples of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...even if the warmer object is the instrument itself...that constitutes an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

The fact that you have to make up bullshit examples hoping to fool someone rather than provide actual examples derived under laboratory conditions speaks volumes...either you can provide actual examples to support your beliefs or you can't...and we both know full well that you can't...

 

[SSDD]

Yes, net power radiated is zero.

Sorry guy...net zero and zero are not the same thing...net zero indicates exchanges with an end result that is the same as zero....

Zero indicates no change whatsoever....

P=0 describes a gross change and does not describe the same physical process as P=(X+Y)-(X+Y) which describes a net change

In physics, mathematical equations are describing a physical process.....

 

[Wuwei]

Quaint...and years later we are still waiting for an actual observed measurement of this spontaneous two way energy flow...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...nothing more, nothing less

there is no net flow...it only exists in models...only idiots believe otherwise

So, you are calling Stefan and every scientist after him an idiot. Why don't you email Dr Raeder and call him an idiot.

.

I am asking for published, observed, measured examples of spontaneous energy exchange between objects of different temperatures....and don't hand me examples of piss poor scientists being fooled by instrumentation like flacalten who is fooled daily by his home depot IR thermometer, or ian who believes that the thermopiles inside a pyrogeometer know whether the energy causing them to warm is coming from up or down...

Show me published, observed, measured examples of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...even if the warmer object is the instrument itself...that constitutes an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

The fact that you have to make up bullshit examples hoping to fool someone rather than provide actual examples derived under laboratory conditions speaks volumes...either you can provide actual examples to support your beliefs or you can't...and we both know full well that you can't...

You call every scientist an idiot for accepting proven consistent science; and this is your response? Then you promote a self-contradictory substitute for thermodynamics. We have shown your "flat-earth" ideas wrong in every way, but you continually whine about it being so tedious.

Since you asked for the tedium again, I will oblige using the "thermodynamics" you promote.

• Your premise: the emission of energy that previously absorbed work is never spontaneous.
• Heat a rock to a warm temperature. It will not radiate spontaneously.
• Heat a rock to a hotter temperature. It will not radiate spontaneously.
• Both rocks can radiate to each other because neither is spontaneous.
• This statement is satisfied: Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Therein lies the self contradiction. No process on earth you can name spontaneously emits energy because prior work was done. Yet you keep tediously harping on the statement, "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object," when in your world nothing is spontaneous anyway.

Observed, measured examples were given to you but your deny them because of your fake physics, which lacks self-consistency.

.



.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...net zero and zero are not the same thing...net zero indicates exchanges with an end result that is the same as zero....

Zero indicates no change whatsoever....

P=0 describes a gross change and does not describe the same physical process as P=(X+Y)-(X+Y) which describes a net change

That is total garbage.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, net power radiated is zero.

Sorry guy...net zero and zero are not the same thing...net zero indicates exchanges with an end result that is the same as zero....

Zero indicates no change whatsoever....

P=0 describes a gross change and does not describe the same physical process as P=(X+Y)-(X+Y) which describes a net change

In physics, mathematical equations are describing a physical process.....

Sorry guy...net zero and zero are not the same thing..

No kidding.

Still no backup for your claim of zero.