Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

But enough about your "matter stops emitting at equilibrium" and "dimmer switch" claims.

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet? SSDD asked you for it, you haven't posted it yet. hmmmmmm how come?

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet?

You mean the one that says photons can't be emitted toward warmer matter?

No. That one doesn't exist.

yep that one, so you have no evidence of two way flow? hmmm

Yeah, I don't have SSDD's imaginary version of the 2nd Law.
No one else does either.

Weird.

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm. hmmmm why is that? oh yeah, 2nd law thingy. That you can't produce another version to counter point it's one way flow.

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm.

I showed you images from an IR camera. It was too complicated for you. Sorry.

 

[jc456]

I asked you what it was, you avoided the answer yet again.

You said the Sun was hot because.....fire.

Now I need to explain what you meant?

It's basically what it is minus oxygen. What do you call it? and again you avoided the answer.

If the Sun Is on Fire, How Does It Get Oxygen?

Hydrogen is on fire, without oxygen, on the surface of the Sun?

i asked you what it was, and there's the avoidance again, dodgeball todd still dodging balls.

i asked you what it was

You asked me what fire was. You don't know?

what is it? dodgeball todd?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Global warming crap is Watermelon!

Green on the outside and Red on the inside.

 

[jc456]

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet? SSDD asked you for it, you haven't posted it yet. hmmmmmm how come?

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet?

You mean the one that says photons can't be emitted toward warmer matter?

No. That one doesn't exist.

yep that one, so you have no evidence of two way flow? hmmm

Yeah, I don't have SSDD's imaginary version of the 2nd Law.
No one else does either.

Weird.

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm. hmmmm why is that? oh yeah, 2nd law thingy. That you can't produce another version to counter point it's one way flow.

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm.

I showed you images from an IR camera. It was too complicated for you. Sorry.

nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm, you still lose. fk dude, I even contacted the manufacturer. I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website. I told you you could.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said the Sun was hot because.....fire.

Now I need to explain what you meant?

It's basically what it is minus oxygen. What do you call it? and again you avoided the answer.

If the Sun Is on Fire, How Does It Get Oxygen?

Hydrogen is on fire, without oxygen, on the surface of the Sun?

i asked you what it was, and there's the avoidance again, dodgeball todd still dodging balls.

i asked you what it was

You asked me what fire was. You don't know?

what is it? dodgeball todd?

LMGTFY

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet?

You mean the one that says photons can't be emitted toward warmer matter?

No. That one doesn't exist.

yep that one, so you have no evidence of two way flow? hmmm

Yeah, I don't have SSDD's imaginary version of the 2nd Law.
No one else does either.

Weird.

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm. hmmmm why is that? oh yeah, 2nd law thingy. That you can't produce another version to counter point it's one way flow.

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm.

I showed you images from an IR camera. It was too complicated for you. Sorry.

nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm, you still lose. fk dude, I even contacted the manufacturer. I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website. I told you you could.

nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm,

Photons from the cold ice cream were clearly captured by the camera.

I even contacted the manufacturer.

Yeah, your misinterpretation was hilarious!!!

Try getting an email from them.....I'll be happy to show where you went wrong.

I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website.

Great idea!!
Post the link.....and put your question out there.
Then we can all watch when they answer.

Can't wait!!!

 

[jc456]

Photons from the cold ice cream were clearly captured by the camera.
nope, the camera calculated there was something there based on a change of temperature in the sensor as photons flowed out of the camera's sensor toward the ice cream. again, I told you you could contact the company as I did.

 

[jc456]

yep that one, so you have no evidence of two way flow? hmmm

Yeah, I don't have SSDD's imaginary version of the 2nd Law.
No one else does either.

Weird.

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm. hmmmm why is that? oh yeah, 2nd law thingy. That you can't produce another version to counter point it's one way flow.

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm.

I showed you images from an IR camera. It was too complicated for you. Sorry.

nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm, you still lose. fk dude, I even contacted the manufacturer. I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website. I told you you could.

nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm,

Photons from the cold ice cream were clearly captured by the camera.

I even contacted the manufacturer.

Yeah, your misinterpretation was hilarious!!!

Try getting an email from them.....I'll be happy to show where you went wrong.

I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website.

Great idea!!
Post the link.....and put your question out there.
Then we can all watch when they answer.

Can't wait!!!

Great idea!!
Post the link.....and put your question out there.
Then we can all watch when they answer.
I already contacted the company, I got my answer. you don't believe the contact, so you can just contact them yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, I don't have SSDD's imaginary version of the 2nd Law.
No one else does either.

Weird.

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm. hmmmm why is that? oh yeah, 2nd law thingy. That you can't produce another version to counter point it's one way flow.

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm.

I showed you images from an IR camera. It was too complicated for you. Sorry.

nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm, you still lose. fk dude, I even contacted the manufacturer. I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website. I told you you could.

nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm,

Photons from the cold ice cream were clearly captured by the camera.

I even contacted the manufacturer.

Yeah, your misinterpretation was hilarious!!!

Try getting an email from them.....I'll be happy to show where you went wrong.

I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website.

Great idea!!
Post the link.....and put your question out there.
Then we can all watch when they answer.

Can't wait!!!

Great idea!!
Post the link.....and put your question out there.
Then we can all watch when they answer.
I already contacted the company, I got my answer. you don't believe the contact, so you can just contact them yourself.

I already contacted the company, I got my answer.

Yes, your misinterpretation of his verbal answer was funny,

you don't believe the contact, so you can just contact them yourself.

You said there is a website you can chat on.
So post the question, "Do photons from colder matter hit the warmer sensor in the camera?"
Post the link to the chat......we'll see what the company says.

 

[jc456]

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm. hmmmm why is that? oh yeah, 2nd law thingy. That you can't produce another version to counter point it's one way flow.

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm.

I showed you images from an IR camera. It was too complicated for you. Sorry.

nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm, you still lose. fk dude, I even contacted the manufacturer. I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website. I told you you could.

nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm,

Photons from the cold ice cream were clearly captured by the camera.

I even contacted the manufacturer.

Yeah, your misinterpretation was hilarious!!!

Try getting an email from them.....I'll be happy to show where you went wrong.

I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website.

Great idea!!
Post the link.....and put your question out there.
Then we can all watch when they answer.

Can't wait!!!

Great idea!!
Post the link.....and put your question out there.
Then we can all watch when they answer.
I already contacted the company, I got my answer. you don't believe the contact, so you can just contact them yourself.

I already contacted the company, I got my answer.

Yes, your misinterpretation of his verbal answer was funny,

you don't believe the contact, so you can just contact them yourself.

You said there is a website you can chat on.
So post the question, "Do photons from colder matter hit the warmer sensor in the camera?"
Post the link to the chat......we'll see what the company says.

Go do that, post it, take your own advice and play your own game! I did already

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

except you can't provide observable cold going to warm.

I showed you images from an IR camera. It was too complicated for you. Sorry.

nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm, you still lose. fk dude, I even contacted the manufacturer. I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website. I told you you could.

nope, didn't prove cold flow to warm,

Photons from the cold ice cream were clearly captured by the camera.

I even contacted the manufacturer.

Yeah, your misinterpretation was hilarious!!!

Try getting an email from them.....I'll be happy to show where you went wrong.

I knew you'd never take his word, you should go chat on the website.

Great idea!!
Post the link.....and put your question out there.
Then we can all watch when they answer.

Can't wait!!!

Great idea!!
Post the link.....and put your question out there.
Then we can all watch when they answer.
I already contacted the company, I got my answer. you don't believe the contact, so you can just contact them yourself.

I already contacted the company, I got my answer.

Yes, your misinterpretation of his verbal answer was funny,

you don't believe the contact, so you can just contact them yourself.

You said there is a website you can chat on.
So post the question, "Do photons from colder matter hit the warmer sensor in the camera?"
Post the link to the chat......we'll see what the company says.

Go do that, post it, take your own advice and play your own game! I did already

Why don't you post the link and the name of the guy you talked with? I'll ask him to repeat what he said to you.

 

[SSDD]

You aren't speaking science...you are rewriting science into dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

But enough about your "matter stops emitting at equilibrium" and "dimmer switch" claims.

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet? SSDD asked you for it, you haven't posted it yet. hmmmmmm how come?

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet?

You mean the one that says photons can't be emitted toward warmer matter?

No. That one doesn't exist.

yep that one, so you have no evidence of two way flow? hmmm

Yeah, I don't have SSDD's imaginary version of the 2nd Law.
No one else does either.

Weird.

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.

Nothing imaginary about the second law...I agree with every word....it is you who thinks that photons have some magical exemption from obeying the laws of physics as if they weren't energy.. You are the one who seems to think that unless everything in the universe which is effected by the second law is named explicitly, that it gets a pass.

As to photons...what are they if they aren't energy?

Photon -
The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measurable momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle.

and since you probably don't know what a quantum is:

Quantum - The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.
This amount of energy regarded as a unit.

So again....what are photons if they aren't energy?

By the way...did you note that the very definition of a photon says that they have a rest mass of zero? Meaning that they have mass when they are moving....and when might a photon ever be at rest?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

But enough about your "matter stops emitting at equilibrium" and "dimmer switch" claims.

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet? SSDD asked you for it, you haven't posted it yet. hmmmmmm how come?

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet?

You mean the one that says photons can't be emitted toward warmer matter?

No. That one doesn't exist.

yep that one, so you have no evidence of two way flow? hmmm

Yeah, I don't have SSDD's imaginary version of the 2nd Law.
No one else does either.

Weird.

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.

Nothing imaginary about the second law...I agree with every word....it is you who thinks that photons have some magical exemption from obeying the laws of physics as if they weren't energy.. You are the one who seems to think that unless everything in the universe which is effected by the second law is named explicitly, that it gets a pass.

As to photons...what are they if they aren't energy?

Photon -
The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measurable momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle.

and since you probably don't know what a quantum is:

Quantum - The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.
This amount of energy regarded as a unit.

So again....what are photons if they aren't energy?

By the way...did you note that the very definition of a photon says that they have a rest mass of zero? Meaning that they have mass when they are moving....and when might a photon ever be at rest?

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which doesn't stop photons from moving from the Sun's surface toward and through the corona.

Which doesn't stop photons from moving from the 70 F walls of my home in December toward my 98 F skin.​

By the way...did you note that the very definition of a photon says that they have a rest mass of zero? Meaning that they have mass when they are moving

Excellent! What is the mass of a mole of photons?

 

[Wuwei]

Nothing imaginary about the second law...I agree with every word.

No you don't.
From the hyperphysics site. Here is a PhD who strongly disagrees with your opinion.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

He is the one who wrote the wording of the Clausius form of the second law, and qualified his own wording.

.

 

[jc456]

Nothing imaginary about the second law...I agree with every word.

No you don't.
From the hyperphysics site. Here is a PhD who strongly disagrees with your opinion.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

He is the one who wrote the wording of the Clausius form of the second law, and qualified his own wording.

.

Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

"Clausius Statement of the Second Law
One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following.

“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.

Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system without external work being performed on the system. This is exactly what refrigerators and heat pumps accomplish. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external work, refrigerators are driven by electric motors requiring work from their surroundings to operate."

 

[Wuwei]

Do feel free to post any of those experiments that actually demonstrate what you claim...and while I suppose it is pointless to ask...try not to post up the stuff which was only good enough to fool you.

The rest is nothing more than your endlessly tedious reinterpretation of statements that bear no resemblance to the original statement that was made...either you are a hopeless liar or literally unable to read and grasp the meaning of the words.

You are still evading this point:
You stated that no process is spontaneous if there was prior input energy of any sort even though the process later spontaneously releases energy without external input. You stated that any configuration that is man-made cannot be spontaneous.

You continually cite the second law in part as

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.​

That means you believe radiation from the colder atmosphere to the earth surface is possible because the atmosphere and surface both get their energy from the sun and are not spontaneous.

Also according to your physics, man-made ice cubes can radiate to a cup of hot tea.

You can agree energy from the cold CMB does enter the atmosphere.

However, even though your conclusions about the atmosphere are right, they are right for the wrong reasons.

.

 

[SSDD]

Which doesn't stop photons from moving from the Sun's surface toward and through the corona.

As has been pointed out to you multiple times, the molecules in the sun's corona are so far apart that you would actually freeze to death in the near vacuum if you found yourself there...The sun's corona is about as solid to photons leaving the surface of the sun as a chain link fence is to a virus..

Which doesn't stop photons from moving from the 70 F walls of my home in December toward my 98 F skin.

Do feel free to provide a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving spontaneously from any cooler object to any warmer object made with an instrument that isn't cooled to a temperature lower than that of the claimed radiator...​

Excellent! What is the mass of a mole of photons?

That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent...billy gave you the equation to figure it out...maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...or judging from the equation, most any junior high math nerd could give you a hand..

 

[SSDD]

Nothing imaginary about the second law...I agree with every word.

No you don't.
From the hyperphysics site. Here is a PhD who strongly disagrees with your opinion.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

He is the one who wrote the wording of the Clausius form of the second law, and qualified his own wording.

.

Clearly, you aren't able to read and differentiate the difference between the actual second law of thermodynamics...and someone's opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the statement of the second law is as I posted...all the rest is opinion...unobserved, unmeasured, untested...

Oh the tedium of constantly having to correct your reading errors....is there anything that you don't reinterpret/

 

[SSDD]

You are still evading this point:
You stated that no process is spontaneous if there was prior input energy of any sort even though the process later spontaneously releases energy without external input. You stated that any configuration that is man-made cannot be spontaneous.

Actually, that isn't what I said...but then you can't actually read can you All the words apparently pass through some mixmaster on the way to your brain and get rearranged to mean something entirely different from what was said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which doesn't stop photons from moving from the Sun's surface toward and through the corona.

As has been pointed out to you multiple times, the molecules in the sun's corona are so far apart that you would actually freeze to death in the near vacuum if you found yourself there...The sun's corona is about as solid to photons leaving the surface of the sun as a chain link fence is to a virus..

Which doesn't stop photons from moving from the 70 F walls of my home in December toward my 98 F skin.

Do feel free to provide a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving spontaneously from any cooler object to any warmer object made with an instrument that isn't cooled to a temperature lower than that of the claimed radiator...​

Excellent! What is the mass of a mole of photons?

That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent...billy gave you the equation to figure it out...maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...or judging from the equation, most any junior high math nerd could give you a hand..

As has been pointed out to you multiple times, the molecules in the sun's corona are so far apart that you would actually freeze to death in the near vacuum if you found yourself there...

You've already said, photons from the surface are not spontaneous.
Wouldn't matter if the corona was thick as a brick.

Do feel free to provide a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving spontaneously from any cooler object to any warmer object

Why is energy moving from my walls spontaneous?
I burn a lot of natural gas to get them to that temperature.
Not spontaneous.

That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent

Pick a wavelength, any wavelength, give me the molar mass.

maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...

Sure, after you ask your adult, send them my way.