Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

So much for the claim that you need to cool the instrument to see photons from cooler matter.

Waiting on his response, the cameras uncooled therefore, hmmm can’t read cold ir.

the cameras uncooled therefore, hmmm can’t read cold ir.

You saw the cold ice cream. Why couldn't it read the ice cream?

Yep, the camera FPA was losing energy toward the missing IR since it wasn’t cooled

Yep, the camera FPA was losing energy toward the missing IR since it wasn’t cooled

Let's follow your "logic".

The sensor knows to receive from, and not emit toward, the warmer skin of the girl.
Because of your confusion about the 2nd Law.
She opens her mouth to expose the ice cream, and without receiving a photon, the sensor knows it can suddenly emit.

That sensor has ESP or something.

No luck finding the dimmer switch sub clause of the SB?

No confusion at all. All working like 2nd law says

You are wasting your time...His special brand of stupid simply can't be fixed.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object


He believes that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to radiation...he thinks that radiation is something other than energy...even though, by definition, radiation is energy moving through some medium in the form of a waver particles if you believe in theoretical particles...

Further, he believes that the sensor in the camera must "know" something in order to obey the laws of thermodynamics...He believes that photons must know something in order to obey the laws of thermodynamics. He can never accept that the sensor in that camera nothing more than an array of sensors that does nothing more than measure whether they are heating up...or cooling down and then turn that temperature increase or decrease into an electrical signal which is then processed through a mathematical formula which assigns a color to a pixel on a screen. If the sensor in the array is warming, it assigns a warm color to a pixel on a screen based on how much and how fast it is warming...if it is cooling, then it assigns a cool color to a pixel on a screen based on how much and how fast it is cooling.

I doubt that anything, including an explanation by a manufacturer or a designer would convince him of how the device works...he is convinced that cold objects are beaming energy to warm objects...it is his belief and belief isn't subject to being swayed by trivial things like fact.

 

[SSDD]

According to the model...quantum angular momentum requires mass...live by the model...die by the model..

Particles with mass can have spin. The photon has spin but no mass. The photon spin has two intrinsic values, plus and minus h (Plank's constant).

So safety the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.

You have now provided experimental proof that the photon has no change in mass as a function of wavelength.

.

Experimental proof huh? So I just proved the existence of photons and they are no longer theoretical particles? Where do I sign up for my Nobel...

All you have demonstrated is how easily you are fooled...and what a low bar you have for things that amount to experimental proof..or even evidence... Little wonder you are a dupe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Waiting on his response, the cameras uncooled therefore, hmmm can’t read cold ir.

the cameras uncooled therefore, hmmm can’t read cold ir.

You saw the cold ice cream. Why couldn't it read the ice cream?

Yep, the camera FPA was losing energy toward the missing IR since it wasn’t cooled

Yep, the camera FPA was losing energy toward the missing IR since it wasn’t cooled

Let's follow your "logic".

The sensor knows to receive from, and not emit toward, the warmer skin of the girl.
Because of your confusion about the 2nd Law.
She opens her mouth to expose the ice cream, and without receiving a photon, the sensor knows it can suddenly emit.

That sensor has ESP or something.

No luck finding the dimmer switch sub clause of the SB?

No confusion at all. All working like 2nd law says

You are wasting your time...His special brand of stupid simply can't be fixed.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object


He believes that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to radiation...he thinks that radiation is something other than energy...even though, by definition, radiation is energy moving through some medium in the form of a waver particles if you believe in theoretical particles...

Further, he believes that the sensor in the camera must "know" something in order to obey the laws of thermodynamics...He believes that photons must know something in order to obey the laws of thermodynamics. He can never accept that the sensor in that camera nothing more than an array of sensors that does nothing more than measure whether they are heating up...or cooling down and then turn that temperature increase or decrease into an electrical signal which is then processed through a mathematical formula which assigns a color to a pixel on a screen. If the sensor in the array is warming, it assigns a warm color to a pixel on a screen based on how much and how fast it is warming...if it is cooling, then it assigns a cool color to a pixel on a screen based on how much and how fast it is cooling.

I doubt that anything, including an explanation by a manufacturer or a designer would convince him of how the device works...he is convinced that cold objects are beaming energy to warm objects...it is his belief and belief isn't subject to being swayed by trivial things like fact.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.

Still confused? Work was done to make the ice cream.
IR from the ice cream can now flow toward the room temperature camera. LOL!

Further, he believes that the sensor in the camera must "know" something in order to obey the laws of thermodynamics...

Nah, that's you, imagining matter dials up and dials down its emissions, based on nearby (or really far away) matter. Which violates the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

I doubt that anything, including an explanation by a manufacturer or a designer would convince him of how the device works...

Not even the Handbook of Modern Sensors, eh? DURR

 

[Billy_Bob]

According to the model...quantum angular momentum requires mass...live by the model...die by the model..

Particles with mass can have spin. The photon has spin but no mass. The photon spin has two intrinsic values, plus and minus h (Plank's constant).

If the photon has a variable spinning mass as you think, then the angular momentum would be a function of the photon energy and would no longer be h. Countless measurements say the spin only has two constant values: +/- h.

You have now provided experimental proof that the photon has no change in mass as a function of wavelength.

.

I have given you the equation that proves the photon has mass and that mass increases with the power it contains. We dont know if it "spins" but given that all matter does spin it is assumed.

Are photons affected by gravity? YES! This means they have mass and spin..

 

[SSDD]

Still confused? Work was done to make the ice cream.
IR from the ice cream can now flow toward the room temperature camera. LOL!

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

Not even the Handbook of Modern Sensors, eh? DURR

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...then he showed a drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the book clearly stated that the sensor was cooling down...

But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..

 

[SSDD]

According to the model...quantum angular momentum requires mass...live by the model...die by the model..

Particles with mass can have spin. The photon has spin but no mass. The photon spin has two intrinsic values, plus and minus h (Plank's constant).

If the photon has a variable spinning mass as you think, then the angular momentum would be a function of the photon energy and would no longer be h. Countless measurements say the spin only has two constant values: +/- h.

You have now provided experimental proof that the photon has no change in mass as a function of wavelength.

.

I have given you the equation that proves the photon has mass and that mass increases with the power it contains. We dont know if it "spins" but given that all matter does spin it is assumed.

Are photons affected by gravity? YES! This means they have mass and spin..

You are arguing with a religious zealot...nothing can sway him...if it looks to him like you are going to win...he will just make something up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still confused? Work was done to make the ice cream.
IR from the ice cream can now flow toward the room temperature camera. LOL!

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

Not even the Handbook of Modern Sensors, eh? DURR

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...then he showed a drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the book clearly stated that the sensor was cooling down...

But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

This is this first time I've seen you limit your definition of work like this.
Does this conflict with your previous claims about work?

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...

It stated that energy was moving both ways. Despite your claim that it only moves one way.

 

[jc456]

No

Yep, the camera FPA was losing energy toward the missing IR since it wasn’t cooled

Yep, the camera FPA was losing energy toward the missing IR since it wasn’t cooled

Let's follow your "logic".

The sensor knows to receive from, and not emit toward, the warmer skin of the girl.
Because of your confusion about the 2nd Law.
She opens her mouth to expose the ice cream, and without receiving a photon, the sensor knows it can suddenly emit.

That sensor has ESP or something.

No luck finding the dimmer switch sub clause of the SB?

No confusion at all. All working like 2nd law says

SB says photons can go both ways between objects.

That doesn't conflict with the 2nd Law in the slightest.

If you feel it does, post your proof.

And a link to the dimmer switch exception. LOL!

I’m waiting on your observation, where is that?

I posted the video.

So, still no list of the conflicts between the 2nd Law and SB?
No dimmer switch backup?

observed cold objects radiating at warmer objects, any day hmm must be made up. No conflict one way flow is one way flow

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No

Yep, the camera FPA was losing energy toward the missing IR since it wasn’t cooled

Let's follow your "logic".

The sensor knows to receive from, and not emit toward, the warmer skin of the girl.
Because of your confusion about the 2nd Law.
She opens her mouth to expose the ice cream, and without receiving a photon, the sensor knows it can suddenly emit.

That sensor has ESP or something.

No luck finding the dimmer switch sub clause of the SB?

No confusion at all. All working like 2nd law says

SB says photons can go both ways between objects.

That doesn't conflict with the 2nd Law in the slightest.

If you feel it does, post your proof.

And a link to the dimmer switch exception. LOL!

I’m waiting on your observation, where is that?

I posted the video.

So, still no list of the conflicts between the 2nd Law and SB?
No dimmer switch backup?

observed cold objects radiating at warmer objects, any day hmm must be made up. No conflict one way flow is one way flow

If the IR camera in particular, and the SB law in general, isn't enough for you to believe cold objects can radiate in any direction, with no restriction whatsoever.....you're on your own.

 

[jc456]

No

No confusion at all. All working like 2nd law says

SB says photons can go both ways between objects.

That doesn't conflict with the 2nd Law in the slightest.

If you feel it does, post your proof.

And a link to the dimmer switch exception. LOL!

I’m waiting on your observation, where is that?

I posted the video.

So, still no list of the conflicts between the 2nd Law and SB?
No dimmer switch backup?

observed cold objects radiating at warmer objects, any day hmm must be made up. No conflict one way flow is one way flow

If the IR camera in particular, and the SB law in general, isn't enough for you to believe cold objects can radiate in any direction, with no restriction whatsoever.....you're on your own.

I explained, I don’t believe SB used that camera, so I’m still waiting for the observation go

 

[jc456]

Still confused? Work was done to make the ice cream.
IR from the ice cream can now flow toward the room temperature camera. LOL!

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

Not even the Handbook of Modern Sensors, eh? DURR

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...then he showed a drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the book clearly stated that the sensor was cooling down...

But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

This is this first time I've seen you limit your definition of work like this.
Does this conflict with your previous claims about work?

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...

It stated that energy was moving both ways. Despite your claim that it only moves one way.

The energy is moving two directions, the heat from the sensor to the ice cream and the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera. It’s simple, you’re still very confused for sure

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still confused? Work was done to make the ice cream.
IR from the ice cream can now flow toward the room temperature camera. LOL!

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

Not even the Handbook of Modern Sensors, eh? DURR

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...then he showed a drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the book clearly stated that the sensor was cooling down...

But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

This is this first time I've seen you limit your definition of work like this.
Does this conflict with your previous claims about work?

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...

It stated that energy was moving both ways. Despite your claim that it only moves one way.

The energy is moving two directions, the heat from the sensor to the ice cream and the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera. It’s simple, you’re still very confused for sure

the heat from the sensor to the ice cream

And the heat from the ice cream to the sensor.

the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera.

And the heat of the camera flowing to the skin on the human.

 

[Wuwei]

So safety the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.

That doesn't make sense. But of course nothing you say makes sense.

Experimental proof huh? So I just proved the existence of photons and they are no longer theoretical particles? Where do I sign up for my Nobel...

You didn't read for comprehension. Let me try again. If you think the photon has mass related to wavelength then the measured spin should depend on wavelength because spin angular momentum is related to mass. But the spin is quantized to two explicit values independent of wavelength. Therefore the photon does not have mass. Otherwise the observed measured spin would be a continuous variable. That is experimental proof that the mass of the photon is constant, namely zero.

All you have demonstrated is how easily you are fooled...and what a low bar you have for things that amount to experimental proof..or even evidence... Little wonder you are a dupe.

And you have demonstrated once more that you don't understand anything about electromagnetism.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes....
.....
But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..

Prior work has gone into making the ice cream. You very clearly said anything with prior work involved is never spontaneous. Didn't you ever home make ice cream? You have to do a lot of churning. Lots of work. In the factory of course they have machines do the work.

Of course nobody believes that spontaneity is denied with prior work, but of course no scientist believes your ridiculous fake thermodynamics either.

.

 

[jc456]

Still confused? Work was done to make the ice cream.
IR from the ice cream can now flow toward the room temperature camera. LOL!

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

Not even the Handbook of Modern Sensors, eh? DURR

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...then he showed a drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the book clearly stated that the sensor was cooling down...

But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

This is this first time I've seen you limit your definition of work like this.
Does this conflict with your previous claims about work?

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...

It stated that energy was moving both ways. Despite your claim that it only moves one way.

The energy is moving two directions, the heat from the sensor to the ice cream and the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera. It’s simple, you’re still very confused for sure

the heat from the sensor to the ice cream

And the heat from the ice cream to the sensor.

the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera.

And the heat of the camera flowing to the skin on the human.

Nope no heat coming off ice, until you prove it

And sensor in camera detecting heat from skin

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still confused? Work was done to make the ice cream.
IR from the ice cream can now flow toward the room temperature camera. LOL!

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

Not even the Handbook of Modern Sensors, eh? DURR

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...then he showed a drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the book clearly stated that the sensor was cooling down...

But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

This is this first time I've seen you limit your definition of work like this.
Does this conflict with your previous claims about work?

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...

It stated that energy was moving both ways. Despite your claim that it only moves one way.

The energy is moving two directions, the heat from the sensor to the ice cream and the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera. It’s simple, you’re still very confused for sure

the heat from the sensor to the ice cream

And the heat from the ice cream to the sensor.

the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera.

And the heat of the camera flowing to the skin on the human.

Nope no heat coming off ice, until you prove it

And sensor in camera detecting heat from skin

You're free to deny how the sensors work.
I can't force you to understand.

 

[jc456]

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...then he showed a drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the book clearly stated that the sensor was cooling down...

But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

This is this first time I've seen you limit your definition of work like this.
Does this conflict with your previous claims about work?

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...

It stated that energy was moving both ways. Despite your claim that it only moves one way.

The energy is moving two directions, the heat from the sensor to the ice cream and the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera. It’s simple, you’re still very confused for sure

the heat from the sensor to the ice cream

And the heat from the ice cream to the sensor.

the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera.

And the heat of the camera flowing to the skin on the human.

Nope no heat coming off ice, until you prove it

And sensor in camera detecting heat from skin

You're free to deny how the sensors work.
I can't force you to understand.

I understand how they work, your explanation is hilarious

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

This is this first time I've seen you limit your definition of work like this.
Does this conflict with your previous claims about work?

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...

It stated that energy was moving both ways. Despite your claim that it only moves one way.

The energy is moving two directions, the heat from the sensor to the ice cream and the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera. It’s simple, you’re still very confused for sure

the heat from the sensor to the ice cream

And the heat from the ice cream to the sensor.

the heat of the skin on the human flowing to the camera.

And the heat of the camera flowing to the skin on the human.

Nope no heat coming off ice, until you prove it

And sensor in camera detecting heat from skin

You're free to deny how the sensors work.
I can't force you to understand.

I understand how they work, your explanation is hilarious

If you understood, you wouldn't disagree with the Handbook of Modern Sensors.
You'd know what the word "exchange" means.

 

[SSDD]

Still confused? Work was done to make the ice cream.
IR from the ice cream can now flow toward the room temperature camera. LOL!

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

Not even the Handbook of Modern Sensors, eh? DURR

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...then he showed a drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the book clearly stated that the sensor was cooling down...

But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes

This is this first time I've seen you limit your definition of work like this.
Does this conflict with your previous claims about work?

The Handbook of Modern Sensors stated in plain language that the energy was moving from the camera to the cooler object...

It stated that energy was moving both ways. Despite your claim that it only moves one way.

Still waiting...describe the work...you claimed that work was being done to move the energy from the cold ice cream to the warmer camera....what work? Or were you just making it up as you go...

And the drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model hardly makes your case...the book clearly stated that the energy was moving out of the camera towards the cooler object...

 

[SSDD]

Work = Force x distance...describe the work being done to move the IR from the ice cream to the sensor in the camera...and do describe where the heat resulting from this work goes....
.....
But do describe the nature of the work being done to move the energy from the cooler ice cream to the warmer camera..

Prior work has gone into making the ice cream. You very clearly said anything with prior work involved is never spontaneous. Didn't you ever home make ice cream? You have to do a lot of churning. Lots of work. In the factory of course they have machines do the work.

Of course nobody believes that spontaneity is denied with prior work, but of course no scientist believes your ridiculous fake thermodynamics either.

.

You are a top shelf idiot...congratulations.. but do describe what sort of prior work went into the manufacture of the ice cream that would lead to it moving energy from cool to warm like a refrigeration unit...