Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

how is it net,

In the real world, both objects radiate all the time.
Only in SSDD's fantasy do the objects somehow, magically, determine the other's temperature for purposes
of dialing down their radiation.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already. the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero. SB law, it isn't net, you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net. Just you on a message board says that. So it's you who believes the SB is wrong.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already.

Post your proof that SB is wrong...…….anytime.

the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero.

Funny.

SB law, it isn't net,

because the equation is single-body.

you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net.

No matter how many times you contradict yourself......still funny.

Funny.

And yet you can't post observed radiation off of two objects at the same temperature. it's fking hilarious.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

Your own quote isn't good enough for you? Hilarious indeed.

if it isn't absorbing it isn't emitting it is zero. you've got a screw loose.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

 

[jc456]

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already. the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero. SB law, it isn't net, you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net. Just you on a message board says that. So it's you who believes the SB is wrong.

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already.

Post your proof that SB is wrong...…….anytime.

the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero.

Funny.

SB law, it isn't net,

because the equation is single-body.

you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net.

No matter how many times you contradict yourself......still funny.

Funny.

And yet you can't post observed radiation off of two objects at the same temperature. it's fking hilarious.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

Your own quote isn't good enough for you? Hilarious indeed.

if it isn't absorbing it isn't emitting it is zero. you've got a screw loose.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

if the rate is zero then they are still at the same rate, right?

isn't zero in and zero out zero?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no they don't, not all the time, been through that already.

Post your proof that SB is wrong...…….anytime.

the warm object radiates to the cold object t to tc when they're equal nothing radiates, zero.

Funny.

SB law, it isn't net,

because the equation is single-body.

you can't prove it's net, the definition doesn't say it's net.

No matter how many times you contradict yourself......still funny.

Funny.

And yet you can't post observed radiation off of two objects at the same temperature. it's fking hilarious.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

Your own quote isn't good enough for you? Hilarious indeed.

if it isn't absorbing it isn't emitting it is zero. you've got a screw loose.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

if the rate is zero then they are still at the same rate, right?

isn't zero in and zero out zero?

If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting",
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting.

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.

 

[jc456]

Funny.

And yet you can't post observed radiation off of two objects at the same temperature. it's fking hilarious.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

Your own quote isn't good enough for you? Hilarious indeed.

if it isn't absorbing it isn't emitting it is zero. you've got a screw loose.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

if the rate is zero then they are still at the same rate, right?

isn't zero in and zero out zero?

If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting",
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting.

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

And oh mr. ricochet, still nothing observed. why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

Your own quote isn't good enough for you? Hilarious indeed.

if it isn't absorbing it isn't emitting it is zero. you've got a screw loose.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

if the rate is zero then they are still at the same rate, right?

isn't zero in and zero out zero?

If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting",
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting.

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

 

[jc456]

if it isn't absorbing it isn't emitting it is zero. you've got a screw loose.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

if the rate is zero then they are still at the same rate, right?

isn't zero in and zero out zero?

If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting",
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting.

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

absorbing nothing and emitting nothing it's all it says.

you Still haven't posted anything observed mr. ricochet.

 

[jc456]

if it isn't absorbing it isn't emitting it is zero. you've got a screw loose.

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

if the rate is zero then they are still at the same rate, right?

isn't zero in and zero out zero?

If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting",
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting.

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

when there is no absorbing and no emitting there is zero, still you're having problems with that digit zero.

so again, night vision goggles, everything the same temperature, do you see images? or do you see nadda/ zero? DOH!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

if the rate is zero then they are still at the same rate, right?

isn't zero in and zero out zero?

If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting",
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting.

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

absorbing nothing and emitting nothing it's all it says.

you Still haven't posted anything observed mr. ricochet.

That's weird, your source didn't say absorbing nothing and emitting nothing .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The "body is absorbing and emitting at the same rate"

if the rate is zero then they are still at the same rate, right?

isn't zero in and zero out zero?

If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting",
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting.

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

when there is no absorbing and no emitting there is zero, still you're having problems with that digit zero.

so again, night vision goggles, everything the same temperature, do you see images? or do you see nadda/ zero? DOH!!!

This camera shows images of colder matter, warmer matter.....even matter of the same temperature.

 

[jc456]

if the rate is zero then they are still at the same rate, right?

isn't zero in and zero out zero?

If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting",
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting.

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

absorbing nothing and emitting nothing it's all it says.

you Still haven't posted anything observed mr. ricochet.

That's weird, your source didn't say absorbing nothing and emitting nothing .

why would it? it was a general statement for all probabilities. big word for you there.

 

[jc456]

if the rate is zero then they are still at the same rate, right?

isn't zero in and zero out zero?

If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting",
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting.

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

when there is no absorbing and no emitting there is zero, still you're having problems with that digit zero.

so again, night vision goggles, everything the same temperature, do you see images? or do you see nadda/ zero? DOH!!!

This camera shows images of colder matter, warmer matter.....even matter of the same temperature.

nope, it doesn't. you're blind also. wow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting",
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting.

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

absorbing nothing and emitting nothing it's all it says.

you Still haven't posted anything observed mr. ricochet.

That's weird, your source didn't say absorbing nothing and emitting nothing .

why would it?

If it backed up your moronic claim, it would. DURR.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If your source meant "neither the body nor surroundings are emitting",
they wouldn't have mentioned the rate. Or absorbing. Or emitting.

I love it when you and SSDD post "proof" that disagrees with your claim.

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

when there is no absorbing and no emitting there is zero, still you're having problems with that digit zero.

so again, night vision goggles, everything the same temperature, do you see images? or do you see nadda/ zero? DOH!!!

This camera shows images of colder matter, warmer matter.....even matter of the same temperature.

nope, it doesn't. you're blind also. wow.

You can't read the temperature scale.....I'm not surprised.

 

[jc456]

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

absorbing nothing and emitting nothing it's all it says.

you Still haven't posted anything observed mr. ricochet.

That's weird, your source didn't say absorbing nothing and emitting nothing .

why would it?

If it backed up your moronic claim, it would. DURR.

it does, I'm not concerned at all. so far you have not posted one observed piece of data. not one, hmmm mr. ricochet, you keep bouncing.

 

[jc456]

zero is a rate correct? it is a number within our system? you're starting to flail bigly!

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

when there is no absorbing and no emitting there is zero, still you're having problems with that digit zero.

so again, night vision goggles, everything the same temperature, do you see images? or do you see nadda/ zero? DOH!!!

This camera shows images of colder matter, warmer matter.....even matter of the same temperature.

nope, it doesn't. you're blind also. wow.

You can't read the temperature scale.....I'm not surprised.

so you think the clothes,, the hair the skin the eyes, are all the same temperature, go fking figure. shit even the ice cream is the same temperature in your world. only in your world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

absorbing nothing and emitting nothing it's all it says.

you Still haven't posted anything observed mr. ricochet.

That's weird, your source didn't say absorbing nothing and emitting nothing .

why would it?

If it backed up your moronic claim, it would. DURR.

it does, I'm not concerned at all. so far you have not posted one observed piece of data. not one, hmmm mr. ricochet, you keep bouncing.

it does, I'm not concerned at all

It says no emitting? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.

Absorbing and emitting.....LOL!

when there is no absorbing and no emitting there is zero, still you're having problems with that digit zero.

so again, night vision goggles, everything the same temperature, do you see images? or do you see nadda/ zero? DOH!!!

This camera shows images of colder matter, warmer matter.....even matter of the same temperature.

nope, it doesn't. you're blind also. wow.

You can't read the temperature scale.....I'm not surprised.

so you think the clothes,, the hair the skin the eyes, are all the same temperature, go fking figure. shit even the ice cream is the same temperature in your world. only in your world.

so you think the clothes,, the hair the skin the eyes, are all the same temperature,

They aren't.

 

[jc456]

absorbing nothing and emitting nothing it's all it says.

you Still haven't posted anything observed mr. ricochet.

That's weird, your source didn't say absorbing nothing and emitting nothing .

why would it?

If it backed up your moronic claim, it would. DURR.

it does, I'm not concerned at all. so far you have not posted one observed piece of data. not one, hmmm mr. ricochet, you keep bouncing.

it does, I'm not concerned at all

It says no emitting? LOL!

Sure, it covers all scenarios

 

[jc456]

.

when there is no absorbing and no emitting there is zero, still you're having problems with that digit zero.

so again, night vision goggles, everything the same temperature, do you see images? or do you see nadda/ zero? DOH!!!

This camera shows images of colder matter, warmer matter.....even matter of the same temperature.

nope, it doesn't. you're blind also. wow.

You can't read the temperature scale.....I'm not surprised.

so you think the clothes,, the hair the skin the eyes, are all the same temperature, go fking figure. shit even the ice cream is the same temperature in your world. only in your world.

so you think the clothes,, the hair the skin the eyes, are all the same temperature,

They aren't.

Then your post wasn’t in response to my post, got it. So wearing night goggles what will you see at night if all objects were the same temperature of the air?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's weird, your source didn't say absorbing nothing and emitting nothing .

why would it?

If it backed up your moronic claim, it would. DURR.

it does, I'm not concerned at all. so far you have not posted one observed piece of data. not one, hmmm mr. ricochet, you keep bouncing.

it does, I'm not concerned at all

It says no emitting? LOL!

Sure, it covers all scenarios

Emitting AND absorbing...….Still funny!