Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

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.

If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...

And no observed, measured examples were provided..as no observed, measured examples exist...since it isn't possible to measure something that doesn't exist...

You have nothing but your belief...belief doesn't cut it for me no matter who believes it...the most brilliant minds in the world have been wrong over and over and over over the course of history...the 21st century is no different..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...

And no observed, measured examples were provided..as no observed, measured examples exist...since it isn't possible to measure something that doesn't exist...

You have nothing but your belief...belief doesn't cut it for me no matter who believes it...the most brilliant minds in the world have been wrong over and over and over over the course of history...the 21st century is no different..

Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.....but you're right. And alone.

Sure thing.

 

[SSDD]

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.

.

Of course it isn't...sorry that you don't grasp the difference...this isn't about the answer on the other side of the equals sign..it is about the process that it describes...the SB equation essentially describes a process of P=sigma (T^4 -Tc^4) not P=sigma T^4 - sigma Tc^4

 

[SSDD]

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.

If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...

And no observed, measured examples were provided..as no observed, measured examples exist...since it isn't possible to measure something that doesn't exist...

You have nothing but your belief...belief doesn't cut it for me no matter who believes it...the most brilliant minds in the world have been wrong over and over and over over the course of history...the 21st century is no different..

Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.....but you're right. And alone.

Sure thing.

Instead of telling me who is right and who is wrong...lets see the actual observed measured evidence...if you have none..you have nothing...I, on the other hand am still waiting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...

And no observed, measured examples were provided..as no observed, measured examples exist...since it isn't possible to measure something that doesn't exist...

You have nothing but your belief...belief doesn't cut it for me no matter who believes it...the most brilliant minds in the world have been wrong over and over and over over the course of history...the 21st century is no different..

Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.....but you're right. And alone.

Sure thing.

Instead of telling me who is right and who is wrong...lets see the actual observed measured evidence...if you have none..you have nothing...I, on the other hand am still waiting.

Do you feel that Einstein and Planck came to their understanding of equilibrium with zero actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

Are you the only person who has noticed, in the history of physics, that there is no actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

 

[jc456]

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.

If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...

And no observed, measured examples were provided..as no observed, measured examples exist...since it isn't possible to measure something that doesn't exist...

You have nothing but your belief...belief doesn't cut it for me no matter who believes it...the most brilliant minds in the world have been wrong over and over and over over the course of history...the 21st century is no different..

Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.....but you're right. And alone.

Sure thing.

Instead of telling me who is right and who is wrong...lets see the actual observed measured evidence...if you have none..you have nothing...I, on the other hand am still waiting.

Do you feel that Einstein and Planck came to their understanding of equilibrium with zero actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

Are you the only person who has noticed, in the history of physics, that there is no actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

then why don't you post it? your hilarious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...

And no observed, measured examples were provided..as no observed, measured examples exist...since it isn't possible to measure something that doesn't exist...

You have nothing but your belief...belief doesn't cut it for me no matter who believes it...the most brilliant minds in the world have been wrong over and over and over over the course of history...the 21st century is no different..

Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.....but you're right. And alone.

Sure thing.

Instead of telling me who is right and who is wrong...lets see the actual observed measured evidence...if you have none..you have nothing...I, on the other hand am still waiting.

Do you feel that Einstein and Planck came to their understanding of equilibrium with zero actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

Are you the only person who has noticed, in the history of physics, that there is no actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

then why don't you post it? your hilarious.

Quicker if you post your evidence against it.

 

[jc456]

If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...

And no observed, measured examples were provided..as no observed, measured examples exist...since it isn't possible to measure something that doesn't exist...

You have nothing but your belief...belief doesn't cut it for me no matter who believes it...the most brilliant minds in the world have been wrong over and over and over over the course of history...the 21st century is no different..

Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.....but you're right. And alone.

Sure thing.

Instead of telling me who is right and who is wrong...lets see the actual observed measured evidence...if you have none..you have nothing...I, on the other hand am still waiting.

Do you feel that Einstein and Planck came to their understanding of equilibrium with zero actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

Are you the only person who has noticed, in the history of physics, that there is no actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

then why don't you post it? your hilarious.

Quicker if you post your evidence against it.

why? I claimed nothing, you're the ones claiming something happens, again, you wish me to prove something doesn't exist rather than back up your claim it does. You sound more left in every post.

 

[Wuwei]

If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...

And no observed, measured examples were provided..as no observed, measured examples exist...since it isn't possible to measure something that doesn't exist...

You have nothing but your belief...belief doesn't cut it for me no matter who believes it...the most brilliant minds in the world have been wrong over and over and over over the course of history...the 21st century is no different..

Why didn't you answer the question I posed?? You have been hiding from this point many times.

• 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.

 

[jc456]

If it is proven, you should have no problem providing observed, measured examples of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously between objects of different temperatures...we both know that you don't...therefore you are telling me what scientists believe...not what is proven....were it proven, you could provide the evidence...

And no observed, measured examples were provided..as no observed, measured examples exist...since it isn't possible to measure something that doesn't exist...

You have nothing but your belief...belief doesn't cut it for me no matter who believes it...the most brilliant minds in the world have been wrong over and over and over over the course of history...the 21st century is no different..

Why didn't you answer the question I posed?? You have been hiding from this point many times.

• 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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.....but you're right. And alone.

Sure thing.

Instead of telling me who is right and who is wrong...lets see the actual observed measured evidence...if you have none..you have nothing...I, on the other hand am still waiting.

Do you feel that Einstein and Planck came to their understanding of equilibrium with zero actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

Are you the only person who has noticed, in the history of physics, that there is no actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

then why don't you post it? your hilarious.

Quicker if you post your evidence against it.

why? I claimed nothing, you're the ones claiming something happens, again, you wish me to prove something doesn't exist rather than back up your claim it does. You sound more left in every post.

why? I claimed nothing,

You keep claiming objects don't emit when near warmer objects.
Despite SB saying they do.

 

[jc456]

Instead of telling me who is right and who is wrong...lets see the actual observed measured evidence...if you have none..you have nothing...I, on the other hand am still waiting.

Do you feel that Einstein and Planck came to their understanding of equilibrium with zero actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

Are you the only person who has noticed, in the history of physics, that there is no actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

then why don't you post it? your hilarious.

Quicker if you post your evidence against it.

why? I claimed nothing, you're the ones claiming something happens, again, you wish me to prove something doesn't exist rather than back up your claim it does. You sound more left in every post.

why? I claimed nothing,

You keep claiming objects don't emit when near warmer objects.
Despite SB saying they do.

correct, you wish me to prove something doesn't do something you said it does without showing us that it actually does what you say it does. whew, that was a lot.

 

[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.

.

Of course it isn't...sorry that you don't grasp the difference...this isn't about the answer on the other side of the equals sign..it is about the process that it describes...the SB equation essentially describes a process of P=sigma (T^4 -Tc^4) not P=sigma T^4 - sigma Tc^4

You are still playing meaningless games with simple arithmetic and still evading the simple well known well accepted derivation. The two middle terms are the essence of the derivation, but you have absolutely no understanding of the science and prefer self-contradiction instead. Which step of the derivation do you disagree with?

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]

Do you feel that Einstein and Planck came to their understanding of equilibrium with zero actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

Are you the only person who has noticed, in the history of physics, that there is no actual observed evidence?

Seriously?

then why don't you post it? your hilarious.

Quicker if you post your evidence against it.

why? I claimed nothing, you're the ones claiming something happens, again, you wish me to prove something doesn't exist rather than back up your claim it does. You sound more left in every post.

why? I claimed nothing,

You keep claiming objects don't emit when near warmer objects.
Despite SB saying they do.

correct, you wish me to prove something doesn't do something you said it does without showing us that it actually does what you say it does. whew, that was a lot.

correct, you wish me to prove something doesn't do something

No, I don't want you to prove your silly claim.

something you said it does

To be precise, something Stefan and Boltzmann said it does.

 

[jc456]

then why don't you post it? your hilarious.

Quicker if you post your evidence against it.

why? I claimed nothing, you're the ones claiming something happens, again, you wish me to prove something doesn't exist rather than back up your claim it does. You sound more left in every post.

why? I claimed nothing,

You keep claiming objects don't emit when near warmer objects.
Despite SB saying they do.

correct, you wish me to prove something doesn't do something you said it does without showing us that it actually does what you say it does. whew, that was a lot.

correct, you wish me to prove something doesn't do something

No, I don't want you to prove your silly claim.

something you said it does

To be precise, something Stefan and Boltzmann said it does.

Where? T=Tc = zero, the equation proves that. You’re confused

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quicker if you post your evidence against it.

why? I claimed nothing, you're the ones claiming something happens, again, you wish me to prove something doesn't exist rather than back up your claim it does. You sound more left in every post.

why? I claimed nothing,

You keep claiming objects don't emit when near warmer objects.
Despite SB saying they do.

correct, you wish me to prove something doesn't do something you said it does without showing us that it actually does what you say it does. whew, that was a lot.

correct, you wish me to prove something doesn't do something

No, I don't want you to prove your silly claim.

something you said it does

To be precise, something Stefan and Boltzmann said it does.

Where? T=Tc = zero, the equation proves that. You’re confused

Where?

Everywhere. No dimmer switch anywhere.

 

[SSDD]

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.

.

Of course it isn't...sorry that you don't grasp the difference...this isn't about the answer on the other side of the equals sign..it is about the process that it describes...the SB equation essentially describes a process of P=sigma (T^4 -Tc^4) not P=sigma T^4 - sigma Tc^4

You are still playing meaningless games with simple arithmetic and still evading the simple well known well accepted derivation. The two middle terms are the essence of the derivation, but you have absolutely no understanding of the science and prefer self-contradiction instead. Which step of the derivation do you disagree with?

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)

.

Funny that you think that the simple act of reducing an equation to its lowest terms equals an equation from which you can derive net.....there is no net...but again...feel free to provide an observed, measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously moving between objects of different temperatures...

We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

.

Of course it isn't...sorry that you don't grasp the difference...this isn't about the answer on the other side of the equals sign..it is about the process that it describes...the SB equation essentially describes a process of P=sigma (T^4 -Tc^4) not P=sigma T^4 - sigma Tc^4

You are still playing meaningless games with simple arithmetic and still evading the simple well known well accepted derivation. The two middle terms are the essence of the derivation, but you have absolutely no understanding of the science and prefer self-contradiction instead. Which step of the derivation do you disagree with?

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)

.

Funny that you think that the simple act of reducing an equation to its lowest terms equals an equation from which you can derive net.....there is no net...but again...feel free to provide an observed, measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously moving between objects of different temperatures...

We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

Any observations of your magic dimmer switch?

 

[Wuwei]

Funny that you think that the simple act of reducing an equation to its lowest terms equals an equation from which you can derive net.....there is no net...but again...feel free to provide an observed, measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy spontaneously moving between objects of different temperatures...

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

If you don't understand the simple arithmetic reduction this is all you need to define the net.
The net flow is the difference:
Pnet = Pₑ – Pₐ

That form makes it easy to understand the net.

.

 

[Wuwei]

We both know that you can't because there is no such observation...it only happens in models...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...

We showed you observable and measured examples many times from Stefan on out. Your problem is that you don't understand the physics behind the observations and measurements. You don't understand black body radiation nor the physics concept of spontaneity. You should read more about physics first. It's fun, and you will be surprised. Maybe you should take some community college classes.

.