Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is the filament heated up if I don't turn on the flashlight?

why would it if you did?

You don't know why a filament heats up?

Wow, you're actually dumber than SSDD.

sure I do, I was wondering if you knew.

What if it was an LED?

No work when I turn on the flashlight?

is there? why don't you know?

I do, I was wondering if you knew.

 

[jc456]

why would it if you did?

You don't know why a filament heats up?

Wow, you're actually dumber than SSDD.

sure I do, I was wondering if you knew.

What if it was an LED?

No work when I turn on the flashlight?

is there? why don't you know?

I do, I was wondering if you knew.

I do, so is there work?

And then explain how it is different than the sun.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Y
You are hopeless...You hang onto fallacy like a life preserver...

You still can not define a photon, yet you want to assign properties to it that defy known physics. Particle or Wave?

Defy how?

Define what the photon is first. Then I will explain.

You made the claim.....explain.
Or don't.

Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation. Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other. Until you define what it is, I wont play your silly ass 3rd grade games.

Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation.

No kidding. Durr.

You still can not define a photon, yet you want to assign properties to it that defy known physics.

Which properties did I assign to a photon that defy known physics?

Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other.

Remember when you claimed that
"cooler photons" can't hit warmer matter because of "covailent [sic] bonds"?

That was awesome!

Still running in circles....

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands. SO sad your too stupid to grasp the simple concept.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't know why a filament heats up?

Wow, you're actually dumber than SSDD.

sure I do, I was wondering if you knew.

What if it was an LED?

No work when I turn on the flashlight?

is there? why don't you know?

I do, I was wondering if you knew.

I do, so is there work?

And then explain how it is different than the sun.

I do, so is there work?

Obviously.

And then explain how it is different than the sun.

One is a chemical reaction, the other a fusion reaction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Defy how?

Define what the photon is first. Then I will explain.

You made the claim.....explain.
Or don't.

Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation. Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other. Until you define what it is, I wont play your silly ass 3rd grade games.

Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation.

No kidding. Durr.

You still can not define a photon, yet you want to assign properties to it that defy known physics.

Which properties did I assign to a photon that defy known physics?

Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other.

Remember when you claimed that
"cooler photons" can't hit warmer matter because of "covailent [sic] bonds"?

That was awesome!

Still running in circles....

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands. SO sad your too stupid to grasp the simple concept.

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands.

"Covailent [sic] bonds" create a magnetic field that deflects non-magnetic "cooler photons"?

 

[jc456]

sure I do, I was wondering if you knew.

What if it was an LED?

No work when I turn on the flashlight?

is there? why don't you know?

I do, I was wondering if you knew.

I do, so is there work?

And then explain how it is different than the sun.

I do, so is there work?

Obviously.

And then explain how it is different than the sun.

One is a chemical reaction, the other a fusion reaction.

what's different between a chemical reaction doing the work or the fusion reaction to emitting light?

 

[jc456]

Define what the photon is first. Then I will explain.

You made the claim.....explain.
Or don't.

Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation. Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other. Until you define what it is, I wont play your silly ass 3rd grade games.

Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation.

No kidding. Durr.

You still can not define a photon, yet you want to assign properties to it that defy known physics.

Which properties did I assign to a photon that defy known physics?

Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other.

Remember when you claimed that
"cooler photons" can't hit warmer matter because of "covailent [sic] bonds"?

That was awesome!

Still running in circles....

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands. SO sad your too stupid to grasp the simple concept.

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands.

"Covailent [sic] bonds" create a magnetic field that deflects non-magnetic "cooler photons"?

why does light bend around a black hole?

 

[SSDD]

Y

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
​

SSDD

People who are wondering what sort of work could move the energy from deep in the sun to the corona wonder....

The subject is cooler surface radiating at hotter corona.
Something you claimed was impossible.

Your 40 degree object emits alfen waves?

Your IQ of 40 emits alfen waves?

Again...you are confusing work

No work when I turn on the flashlight?​

You are hopeless...You hang onto fallacy like a life preserver...

You still can not define a photon, yet you want to assign properties to it that defy known physics. Particle or Wave?

I believe that in the end...when we have learned enough to do more than make up stories as place holders...all EM radiation will turn out to be waves that simply had properties that we were unable to identify or understand..

And that is the problem. Until it is quantitatively defined you can not assign properties to it or define how it reacts. This thread has been one big circle jerk because some here redefine the Laws and what the item is. Until that stops, there is no point in further discussion with these idiots.

Well...in reality, this thread is one individual's response to someone speaking what he considers to be scientific heresy which he is unable to put down with anything like actual evidence to support his own beliefs..

He fails to see that this discussion is the first foundational brick in the whole greenhouse effect / AGW hypothesis and if you can't defend it with anything like actual evidence, then the whole house of cards built upon it is indefensible...

He doesn't like it...but can't produce any actual evidence to put it down so he labels it "denier" and corals it away from everything else so that he can feel comfortable having given it a name (denialism) and relieved himself of having to defend beliefs that are, in realty , indefensible.

 

[jc456]

Y

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
​

SSDD

People who are wondering what sort of work could move the energy from deep in the sun to the corona wonder....

The subject is cooler surface radiating at hotter corona.
Something you claimed was impossible.

Your 40 degree object emits alfen waves?

Your IQ of 40 emits alfen waves?

Again...you are confusing work

No work when I turn on the flashlight?​

You are hopeless...You hang onto fallacy like a life preserver...

You still can not define a photon, yet you want to assign properties to it that defy known physics. Particle or Wave?

I believe that in the end...when we have learned enough to do more than make up stories as place holders...all EM radiation will turn out to be waves that simply had properties that we were unable to identify or understand..

And that is the problem. Until it is quantitatively defined you can not assign properties to it or define how it reacts. This thread has been one big circle jerk because some here redefine the Laws and what the item is. Until that stops, there is no point in further discussion with these idiots.

Well...in reality, this thread is one individual's response to someone speaking what he considers to be scientific heresy which he is unable to put down with anything like actual evidence to support his own beliefs..

He fails to see that this discussion is the first foundational brick in the whole greenhouse effect / AGW hypothesis and if you can't defend it with anything like actual evidence, then the whole house of cards built upon it is indefensible...

He doesn't like it...but can't produce any actual evidence to put it down so he labels it "denier" and corals it away from everything else so that he can feel comfortable having given it a name (denialism) and relieved himself of having to defend beliefs that are, in realty , indefensible.

so dance he must to keep the string moving.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You made the claim.....explain.
Or don't.

Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation. Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other. Until you define what it is, I wont play your silly ass 3rd grade games.

Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation.

No kidding. Durr.

You still can not define a photon, yet you want to assign properties to it that defy known physics.

Which properties did I assign to a photon that defy known physics?

Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other.

Remember when you claimed that
"cooler photons" can't hit warmer matter because of "covailent [sic] bonds"?

That was awesome!

Still running in circles....

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands. SO sad your too stupid to grasp the simple concept.

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands.

"Covailent [sic] bonds" create a magnetic field that deflects non-magnetic "cooler photons"?

why does light bend around a black hole?

A photon must be matter if it can be affected by gravity. But that would kill todd's circular jerk fest so he fails to think critically.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation. Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other. Until you define what it is, I wont play your silly ass 3rd grade games.

Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation.

No kidding. Durr.

You still can not define a photon, yet you want to assign properties to it that defy known physics.

Which properties did I assign to a photon that defy known physics?

Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other.

Remember when you claimed that
"cooler photons" can't hit warmer matter because of "covailent [sic] bonds"?

That was awesome!

Still running in circles....

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands. SO sad your too stupid to grasp the simple concept.

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands.

"Covailent [sic] bonds" create a magnetic field that deflects non-magnetic "cooler photons"?

why does light bend around a black hole?

A photon must be matter if it can be affected by gravity. But that would kill todd's circular jerk fest so he fails to think critically.

A photon must be matter if it can be affected by gravity.

OMG!! Hilarious! Wuwei Crick

Remember when you said photons were magnetic?

That was awesome!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Until you define what a photon is there is no explanation.

No kidding. Durr.

You still can not define a photon, yet you want to assign properties to it that defy known physics.

Which properties did I assign to a photon that defy known physics?

Your the idiot that runs in circles from one definition to the other.

Remember when you claimed that
"cooler photons" can't hit warmer matter because of "covailent [sic] bonds"?

That was awesome!

Still running in circles....

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands. SO sad your too stupid to grasp the simple concept.

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands.

"Covailent [sic] bonds" create a magnetic field that deflects non-magnetic "cooler photons"?

why does light bend around a black hole?

A photon must be matter if it can be affected by gravity. But that would kill todd's circular jerk fest so he fails to think critically.

A photon must be matter if it can be affected by gravity.

OMG!! Hilarious! Wuwei Crick

Remember when you said photons were magnetic?

That was awesome!!!

Tell me MR. Moron, what happens to energy when a molecules outer shells are full? How does the molecule reject incoming energy, which we know by basic physics and observation to be true..?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still running in circles....

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands. SO sad your too stupid to grasp the simple concept.

And the hypothesis about magnetic fields still stands.

"Covailent [sic] bonds" create a magnetic field that deflects non-magnetic "cooler photons"?

why does light bend around a black hole?

A photon must be matter if it can be affected by gravity. But that would kill todd's circular jerk fest so he fails to think critically.

A photon must be matter if it can be affected by gravity.

OMG!! Hilarious! Wuwei Crick

Remember when you said photons were magnetic?

That was awesome!!!

Tell me MR. Moron, what happens to energy when a molecules outer shells are full? How does the molecule reject incoming energy, which we know by basic physics and observation to be true..?

what happens to energy when a molecules outer shells are full?

Full of energy? LOL!

 

[Wuwei]

A photon must be matter if it can be affected by gravity.

OMG!! Hilarious! Wuwei Crick

Remember when you said photons were magnetic?

That was awesome!!!

Matter - Wikipedia

...[matter has]... both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound.​

It is amazing to see billy in an argument about a physics definition which is so easy to look up.

Mass is not an intrinsic property of a photon. It is an extrinsic property. The rest mass (zero) is intrinsic.

The wave length of a photon is not an intrinsic property because observers at different velocities would observe the photon as having different wavelengths due to various Doppler shifts.

If the wave length isn't intrinsic, then neither is the relativistic ersatz mass of the photon. In other words the photon mass is zero.

That may take the fun out of the billy banter, but it is the actual physics, and not something coming from anyone's rectal sphincter. Billy should put it to rest.

Edit: As far as a magnetic photon ...... that's just too hilarious to even think about.
.

 

[Wuwei]

Not an insult...unless you consider the truth to be an insult. I have been pointing out that you aren't arguing against what I actually said for some time now...I am no longer going to do it...If you can't bother to actually read what is said and respond to that, then there is little point in continuing to talk to you.

And conclusions drawn from faulty understanding of what has been said is just more garbage in...garbage out...

You said that you think phosphorescent radiation is not spontaneous because it uses prior absorbed energy. If you don't believe that tell me so.

This is a generalization of what I understand you have been saying:

• No radiation process on earth is spontaneous since all radiation processes use prior absorbed energy.

• Therefore no radiation process violates the statement,
  Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

• That means radiation from any object can be absorbed by any object at any temperature.

I think my conclusions are accurate. Tell me explicitly where you think my generalizations are a faulty understanding.

.

 

[SSDD]

Not an insult...unless you consider the truth to be an insult. I have been pointing out that you aren't arguing against what I actually said for some time now...I am no longer going to do it...If you can't bother to actually read what is said and respond to that, then there is little point in continuing to talk to you.

And conclusions drawn from faulty understanding of what has been said is just more garbage in...garbage out...

You said that you think phosphorescent radiation is not spontaneous because it uses prior absorbed energy. If you don't believe that tell me so.

This is a generalization of what I understand you have been saying:

• No radiation process on earth is spontaneous since all radiation processes use prior absorbed energy.

• Therefore no radiation process violates the statement,
  Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

• That means radiation from any object can be absorbed by any object at any temperature.

I think my conclusions are accurate. Tell me explicitly where you think my generalizations are a faulty understanding.

.

Of course phosphorescence is not a spontaneous process...only an idiot would believe otherwise...

spontaneous process - A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings. It is a process that will occur on its own.

phosphorescence -luminescence that is caused by the absorption of radiations (such as light or electrons) and continues for a noticeable time after these radiations have stopped

If a phosphorescent material does not absorb energy from its surroundings, then it will have no stored energy to emit...easy as that and yet, you don't seem to be able to understand something that simple...

 

[Wuwei]

Of course phosphorescence is not a spontaneous process....A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings.

Yes, that is what I said your theory of spontaneity is. That was my first point. However there is no radiation process that has not had input energy at some point in the past or present.

You didn't answer my second point:

Therefore no radiation process violates the statement,

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

Do you agree that quote must always be true with radiation? If not, why?

.

 

[SSDD]

Of course phosphorescence is not a spontaneous process....A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings.

Yes, that is what I said your theory of spontaneity is. That was my first point. However there is no radiation process that has not had input energy at some point in the past or present.

It isn't my theory...it is the simple fact. It is indisputable except by an idiot.

You didn't answer my second point:

Therefore no radiation process violates the statement,

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

Do you agree that quote must always be true with radiation? If not, why?

.

Being that that statement is the mother of all physical laws, one wouldn't expect anything to violate it...which makes your belief that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm patently ridiculous....try applying for any sort of patent with the US patent office which even hints at perpetual motion or a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and your application gets tossed into the nut bin without further consideration.

 

[Toro]

Had a conversation today with a group raising $1 billion who demonstrated that global warming is changing water flows, and how we could profit from it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course phosphorescence is not a spontaneous process....A spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings.

Yes, that is what I said your theory of spontaneity is. That was my first point. However there is no radiation process that has not had input energy at some point in the past or present.

It isn't my theory...it is the simple fact. It is indisputable except by an idiot.

You didn't answer my second point:

Therefore no radiation process violates the statement,

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

Do you agree that quote must always be true with radiation? If not, why?

.

Being that that statement is the mother of all physical laws, one wouldn't expect anything to violate it...which makes your belief that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm patently ridiculous....try applying for any sort of patent with the US patent office which even hints at perpetual motion or a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and your application gets tossed into the nut bin without further consideration.

which makes your belief that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm patently ridiculous..

So that's why you feel photons from my flashlight are prohibited from hitting the sun?