Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

Clearly you don't know what the subject is. Describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron.

Suppose both irons are being driven by electricity from a gas driven portable generator. The colder iron has it's thermostat turned to low.

There is no question that the pistons of the generator define thermodynamic work.

.

that just describes the energy required to make the heat...now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...do I need to describe the work necessary to move cool to warm in an air conditioning unit again? It takes a great deal of effort to move cold to warm...and simply placing irons facing each other isn't going to do it.

now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...


Now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler Sun's surface through the warmer corona.

Most likely culprit--nanoflares:

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface
The Mystery of Nanoflares | Science Mission Directorate


"One of the interesting problems in space research is explaining why the sun's atmosphere (its corona) is so much hotter than its surface. The chief problem standing in the way of an answer is the lack of suitable instruments for measuring what occurs on the sun's surface and its atmosphere. In this new effort, the researchers used data from the FOXSI-2 sounding rocket (a rocket payload carrying seven telescopes designed to study the sun) to test a theory that suggests heat is injected into the atmosphere by multiple tiny explosions (very small solar flares) on the surface of the sun. Such flares are too small to see with most observational equipment, so the idea has remained just a theory. But now, the new data offers some evidence suggesting the theory is correct.


To test the theory, the researchers looked at X-ray emissions from the corona and found some that were very energetic. This is significant, because solar flares emit X-rays. But the team was studying a part of the sun that had no visible solar flares occurring at the time. This, of course, hinted at another source. The research team suggests the only likely source is superheated plasma that could only have occurred due to nanoflares.


The researchers acknowledge that their findings do not yet solve the coronal heating problem, but they believe they might be getting close. They note that much more research is required—next year, they point out, another sounding rocket will be launched with equipment even more sensitive than that used in the last round, offering better detection of faint X-rays. Also, plans are underway to launch a satellite capable of detecting nanoflares. If future tests can clearly identify the source of the X-rays, the coronal problem may soon be resolved."

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Thanks, but not what we're discussing here.
This thread was built for a few who believe "back radiation" does not exist because the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from radiating toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.

This has expanded to photons not being allowed to travel from say a flashlight to the surface of the Sun, because the Sun is hotter.
This also, in their minds, prevents a photon from traveling millions, hell billions, of light years across the universe....if the photon will hit warmer matter than the matter that emitted it. Never mind the causality problems that would result.

So, if the corona is hotter than the surface, the surface could not emit a single photon that would hit the hotter matter of the, obviously very tenuous, corona. Now photons would have to be emitted, or not, strictly based on picking their path so that they didn't hit anything warmer.

It gets very complex and involves layer upon layer of epicycles.

Hmmm---maybe you're overthinking it?

LOL! Not my area of expertise....I guess I missed the part where someone explained why this matters?

 

[Wuwei]

Hmmm---maybe you're overthinking it?

LOL! Not my area of expertise....I guess I missed the part where someone explained why this matters?

Yes this is a very weird thread. It was made for those who deny the basic tenets of physics so they wouldn't clutter up other threads with their crap.
Hence the word "denial" in the title of this thread.
.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Hmmm---maybe you're overthinking it?

LOL! Not my area of expertise....I guess I missed the part where someone explained why this matters?

Yes this is a very weird thread. It was made for those who deny the basic tenets of physics so they wouldn't clutter up other threads with their crap.
Hence the word "denial" in the title of this thread.
.

Ooops..my bad----

 

[Wuwei]

Hmmm---maybe you're overthinking it?

LOL! Not my area of expertise....I guess I missed the part where someone explained why this matters?

Yes this is a very weird thread. It was made for those who deny the basic tenets of physics so they wouldn't clutter up other threads with their crap.
Hence the word "denial" in the title of this thread.
.

Ooops..my bad----

LOL. But stay and join the crowd if you want to wallow in idiocy and whack those who promote self-contradictory "alternate" science. It's fun for me, but not very productive.

 

[jc456]

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.

Clearly you don't know what the subject is. Describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron.

Suppose both irons are being driven by electricity from a gas driven portable generator. The colder iron has it's thermostat turned to low.

There is no question that the pistons of the generator define thermodynamic work.

.

that just describes the energy required to make the heat...now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...do I need to describe the work necessary to move cool to warm in an air conditioning unit again? It takes a great deal of effort to move cold to warm...and simply placing irons facing each other isn't going to do it.

now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...


Now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler Sun's surface through the warmer corona.

Most likely culprit--nanoflares:

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface
The Mystery of Nanoflares | Science Mission Directorate


"One of the interesting problems in space research is explaining why the sun's atmosphere (its corona) is so much hotter than its surface. The chief problem standing in the way of an answer is the lack of suitable instruments for measuring what occurs on the sun's surface and its atmosphere. In this new effort, the researchers used data from the FOXSI-2 sounding rocket (a rocket payload carrying seven telescopes designed to study the sun) to test a theory that suggests heat is injected into the atmosphere by multiple tiny explosions (very small solar flares) on the surface of the sun. Such flares are too small to see with most observational equipment, so the idea has remained just a theory. But now, the new data offers some evidence suggesting the theory is correct.


To test the theory, the researchers looked at X-ray emissions from the corona and found some that were very energetic. This is significant, because solar flares emit X-rays. But the team was studying a part of the sun that had no visible solar flares occurring at the time. This, of course, hinted at another source. The research team suggests the only likely source is superheated plasma that could only have occurred due to nanoflares.


The researchers acknowledge that their findings do not yet solve the coronal heating problem, but they believe they might be getting close. They note that much more research is required—next year, they point out, another sounding rocket will be launched with equipment even more sensitive than that used in the last round, offering better detection of faint X-rays. Also, plans are underway to launch a satellite capable of detecting nanoflares. If future tests can clearly identify the source of the X-rays, the coronal problem may soon be resolved."

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Thanks, but not what we're discussing here.
This thread was built for a few who believe "back radiation" does not exist because the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from radiating toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.

This has expanded to photons not being allowed to travel from say a flashlight to the surface of the Sun, because the Sun is hotter.
This also, in their minds, prevents a photon from traveling millions, hell billions, of light years across the universe....if the photon will hit warmer matter than the matter that emitted it. Never mind the causality problems that would result.

So, if the corona is hotter than the surface, the surface could not emit a single photon that would hit the hotter matter of the, obviously very tenuous, corona. Now photons would have to be emitted, or not, strictly based on picking their path so that they didn't hit anything warmer.

It gets very complex and involves layer upon layer of epicycles.

yep and so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law, and nothing on back radiation. still waiting. fk, how many posts now? you still haven't provided one observation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Suppose both irons are being driven by electricity from a gas driven portable generator. The colder iron has it's thermostat turned to low.

There is no question that the pistons of the generator define thermodynamic work.

.

that just describes the energy required to make the heat...now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...do I need to describe the work necessary to move cool to warm in an air conditioning unit again? It takes a great deal of effort to move cold to warm...and simply placing irons facing each other isn't going to do it.

now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...


Now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler Sun's surface through the warmer corona.

Most likely culprit--nanoflares:

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface
The Mystery of Nanoflares | Science Mission Directorate


"One of the interesting problems in space research is explaining why the sun's atmosphere (its corona) is so much hotter than its surface. The chief problem standing in the way of an answer is the lack of suitable instruments for measuring what occurs on the sun's surface and its atmosphere. In this new effort, the researchers used data from the FOXSI-2 sounding rocket (a rocket payload carrying seven telescopes designed to study the sun) to test a theory that suggests heat is injected into the atmosphere by multiple tiny explosions (very small solar flares) on the surface of the sun. Such flares are too small to see with most observational equipment, so the idea has remained just a theory. But now, the new data offers some evidence suggesting the theory is correct.


To test the theory, the researchers looked at X-ray emissions from the corona and found some that were very energetic. This is significant, because solar flares emit X-rays. But the team was studying a part of the sun that had no visible solar flares occurring at the time. This, of course, hinted at another source. The research team suggests the only likely source is superheated plasma that could only have occurred due to nanoflares.


The researchers acknowledge that their findings do not yet solve the coronal heating problem, but they believe they might be getting close. They note that much more research is required—next year, they point out, another sounding rocket will be launched with equipment even more sensitive than that used in the last round, offering better detection of faint X-rays. Also, plans are underway to launch a satellite capable of detecting nanoflares. If future tests can clearly identify the source of the X-rays, the coronal problem may soon be resolved."

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Thanks, but not what we're discussing here.
This thread was built for a few who believe "back radiation" does not exist because the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from radiating toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.

This has expanded to photons not being allowed to travel from say a flashlight to the surface of the Sun, because the Sun is hotter.
This also, in their minds, prevents a photon from traveling millions, hell billions, of light years across the universe....if the photon will hit warmer matter than the matter that emitted it. Never mind the causality problems that would result.

So, if the corona is hotter than the surface, the surface could not emit a single photon that would hit the hotter matter of the, obviously very tenuous, corona. Now photons would have to be emitted, or not, strictly based on picking their path so that they didn't hit anything warmer.

It gets very complex and involves layer upon layer of epicycles.

yep and so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law, and nothing on back radiation. still waiting. fk, how many posts now? you still haven't provided one observation.

so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law,

That's great, because energy moving from cold to warm isn't a violation.

 

[jc456]

that just describes the energy required to make the heat...now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...do I need to describe the work necessary to move cool to warm in an air conditioning unit again? It takes a great deal of effort to move cold to warm...and simply placing irons facing each other isn't going to do it.

now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...


Now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler Sun's surface through the warmer corona.

Most likely culprit--nanoflares:

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface
The Mystery of Nanoflares | Science Mission Directorate


"One of the interesting problems in space research is explaining why the sun's atmosphere (its corona) is so much hotter than its surface. The chief problem standing in the way of an answer is the lack of suitable instruments for measuring what occurs on the sun's surface and its atmosphere. In this new effort, the researchers used data from the FOXSI-2 sounding rocket (a rocket payload carrying seven telescopes designed to study the sun) to test a theory that suggests heat is injected into the atmosphere by multiple tiny explosions (very small solar flares) on the surface of the sun. Such flares are too small to see with most observational equipment, so the idea has remained just a theory. But now, the new data offers some evidence suggesting the theory is correct.


To test the theory, the researchers looked at X-ray emissions from the corona and found some that were very energetic. This is significant, because solar flares emit X-rays. But the team was studying a part of the sun that had no visible solar flares occurring at the time. This, of course, hinted at another source. The research team suggests the only likely source is superheated plasma that could only have occurred due to nanoflares.


The researchers acknowledge that their findings do not yet solve the coronal heating problem, but they believe they might be getting close. They note that much more research is required—next year, they point out, another sounding rocket will be launched with equipment even more sensitive than that used in the last round, offering better detection of faint X-rays. Also, plans are underway to launch a satellite capable of detecting nanoflares. If future tests can clearly identify the source of the X-rays, the coronal problem may soon be resolved."

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Thanks, but not what we're discussing here.
This thread was built for a few who believe "back radiation" does not exist because the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from radiating toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.

This has expanded to photons not being allowed to travel from say a flashlight to the surface of the Sun, because the Sun is hotter.
This also, in their minds, prevents a photon from traveling millions, hell billions, of light years across the universe....if the photon will hit warmer matter than the matter that emitted it. Never mind the causality problems that would result.

So, if the corona is hotter than the surface, the surface could not emit a single photon that would hit the hotter matter of the, obviously very tenuous, corona. Now photons would have to be emitted, or not, strictly based on picking their path so that they didn't hit anything warmer.

It gets very complex and involves layer upon layer of epicycles.

yep and so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law, and nothing on back radiation. still waiting. fk, how many posts now? you still haven't provided one observation.

so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law,

That's great, because energy moving from cold to warm isn't a violation.

it is to the 2nd law. so you can get your noble prize for the violation of the 2nd law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...


Now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler Sun's surface through the warmer corona.

Most likely culprit--nanoflares:

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface
The Mystery of Nanoflares | Science Mission Directorate


"One of the interesting problems in space research is explaining why the sun's atmosphere (its corona) is so much hotter than its surface. The chief problem standing in the way of an answer is the lack of suitable instruments for measuring what occurs on the sun's surface and its atmosphere. In this new effort, the researchers used data from the FOXSI-2 sounding rocket (a rocket payload carrying seven telescopes designed to study the sun) to test a theory that suggests heat is injected into the atmosphere by multiple tiny explosions (very small solar flares) on the surface of the sun. Such flares are too small to see with most observational equipment, so the idea has remained just a theory. But now, the new data offers some evidence suggesting the theory is correct.


To test the theory, the researchers looked at X-ray emissions from the corona and found some that were very energetic. This is significant, because solar flares emit X-rays. But the team was studying a part of the sun that had no visible solar flares occurring at the time. This, of course, hinted at another source. The research team suggests the only likely source is superheated plasma that could only have occurred due to nanoflares.


The researchers acknowledge that their findings do not yet solve the coronal heating problem, but they believe they might be getting close. They note that much more research is required—next year, they point out, another sounding rocket will be launched with equipment even more sensitive than that used in the last round, offering better detection of faint X-rays. Also, plans are underway to launch a satellite capable of detecting nanoflares. If future tests can clearly identify the source of the X-rays, the coronal problem may soon be resolved."

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Thanks, but not what we're discussing here.
This thread was built for a few who believe "back radiation" does not exist because the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from radiating toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.

This has expanded to photons not being allowed to travel from say a flashlight to the surface of the Sun, because the Sun is hotter.
This also, in their minds, prevents a photon from traveling millions, hell billions, of light years across the universe....if the photon will hit warmer matter than the matter that emitted it. Never mind the causality problems that would result.

So, if the corona is hotter than the surface, the surface could not emit a single photon that would hit the hotter matter of the, obviously very tenuous, corona. Now photons would have to be emitted, or not, strictly based on picking their path so that they didn't hit anything warmer.

It gets very complex and involves layer upon layer of epicycles.

yep and so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law, and nothing on back radiation. still waiting. fk, how many posts now? you still haven't provided one observation.

so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law,

That's great, because energy moving from cold to warm isn't a violation.

it is to the 2nd law. so you can get your noble prize for the violation of the 2nd law.

Do you feel that the Sun's surface radiating through the corona violates the 2nd? Why or why not?
Do you feel that a flashlight radiating to the Sun's surface violates the 2nd? Why or why not?

 

[jc456]

Most likely culprit--nanoflares:

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface
The Mystery of Nanoflares | Science Mission Directorate


"One of the interesting problems in space research is explaining why the sun's atmosphere (its corona) is so much hotter than its surface. The chief problem standing in the way of an answer is the lack of suitable instruments for measuring what occurs on the sun's surface and its atmosphere. In this new effort, the researchers used data from the FOXSI-2 sounding rocket (a rocket payload carrying seven telescopes designed to study the sun) to test a theory that suggests heat is injected into the atmosphere by multiple tiny explosions (very small solar flares) on the surface of the sun. Such flares are too small to see with most observational equipment, so the idea has remained just a theory. But now, the new data offers some evidence suggesting the theory is correct.


To test the theory, the researchers looked at X-ray emissions from the corona and found some that were very energetic. This is significant, because solar flares emit X-rays. But the team was studying a part of the sun that had no visible solar flares occurring at the time. This, of course, hinted at another source. The research team suggests the only likely source is superheated plasma that could only have occurred due to nanoflares.


The researchers acknowledge that their findings do not yet solve the coronal heating problem, but they believe they might be getting close. They note that much more research is required—next year, they point out, another sounding rocket will be launched with equipment even more sensitive than that used in the last round, offering better detection of faint X-rays. Also, plans are underway to launch a satellite capable of detecting nanoflares. If future tests can clearly identify the source of the X-rays, the coronal problem may soon be resolved."

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Thanks, but not what we're discussing here.
This thread was built for a few who believe "back radiation" does not exist because the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from radiating toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.

This has expanded to photons not being allowed to travel from say a flashlight to the surface of the Sun, because the Sun is hotter.
This also, in their minds, prevents a photon from traveling millions, hell billions, of light years across the universe....if the photon will hit warmer matter than the matter that emitted it. Never mind the causality problems that would result.

So, if the corona is hotter than the surface, the surface could not emit a single photon that would hit the hotter matter of the, obviously very tenuous, corona. Now photons would have to be emitted, or not, strictly based on picking their path so that they didn't hit anything warmer.

It gets very complex and involves layer upon layer of epicycles.

yep and so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law, and nothing on back radiation. still waiting. fk, how many posts now? you still haven't provided one observation.

so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law,

That's great, because energy moving from cold to warm isn't a violation.

it is to the 2nd law. so you can get your noble prize for the violation of the 2nd law.

Do you feel that the Sun's surface radiating through the corona violates the 2nd? Why or why not?
Do you feel that a flashlight radiating to the Sun's surface violates the 2nd? Why or why not?

asked and answered. you need new material. like observed empirical evidence. post #1169 still nope!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

New theory on why the sun's corona is hotter than its surface

Thanks, but not what we're discussing here.
This thread was built for a few who believe "back radiation" does not exist because the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from radiating toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.

This has expanded to photons not being allowed to travel from say a flashlight to the surface of the Sun, because the Sun is hotter.
This also, in their minds, prevents a photon from traveling millions, hell billions, of light years across the universe....if the photon will hit warmer matter than the matter that emitted it. Never mind the causality problems that would result.

So, if the corona is hotter than the surface, the surface could not emit a single photon that would hit the hotter matter of the, obviously very tenuous, corona. Now photons would have to be emitted, or not, strictly based on picking their path so that they didn't hit anything warmer.

It gets very complex and involves layer upon layer of epicycles.

yep and so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law, and nothing on back radiation. still waiting. fk, how many posts now? you still haven't provided one observation.

so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law,

That's great, because energy moving from cold to warm isn't a violation.

it is to the 2nd law. so you can get your noble prize for the violation of the 2nd law.

Do you feel that the Sun's surface radiating through the corona violates the 2nd? Why or why not?
Do you feel that a flashlight radiating to the Sun's surface violates the 2nd? Why or why not?

asked and answered. you need new material. like observed empirical evidence. post #1169 still nope!!

And there you go, running away again. LOL!

 

[SSDD]

that just describes the energy required to make the heat...now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...do I need to describe the work necessary to move cool to warm in an air conditioning unit again? It takes a great deal of effort to move cold to warm...and simply placing irons facing each other isn't going to do it.

That comes from your definition of spontaneity. Prior work was done. Not spontaneous.

Sorry guy.....this whole tangent is the result of you arguing against your interpretation of what I have said..

 

[SSDD]

They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.
.

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

Photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

Quantum - the smallest quantity of radiant energy.

You have been dodging this question for a long time...why?

What are photons if not simply energy...when the second law states that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...it is talking about photons since photons are nothing more than the smallest possible part of an electromagnetic field that can still be said to be associated with that electromagnetic field...Photons are energy....prove otherwise if you think that they aren't...

When the second law mentions energy, it doesn't mention any specific type of energy...are you operating under the assumption that all forms of energy not mentioned by the second law are then exempt from the second law because they weren't specifically named?

Chemical energy is not named....is that form of energy exempt?
Nuclear energy is not named...is it exempt?
How about electrical energy, motion energy, sound energy etc...none of them are specifically named...are they exempt? Which energy do you think the second law is talking about since no specific type of energy is named?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.
.

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

Photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

Quantum - the smallest quantity of radiant energy.

You have been dodging this question for a long time...why?

What are photons if not simply energy...when the second law states that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...it is talking about photons since photons are nothing more than the smallest possible part of an electromagnetic field that can still be said to be associated with that electromagnetic field...Photons are energy....prove otherwise if you think that they aren't...

When the second law mentions energy, it doesn't mention any specific type of energy...are you operating under the assumption that all forms of energy not mentioned by the second law are then exempt from the second law because they weren't specifically named?

Chemical energy is not named....is that form of energy exempt?
Nuclear energy is not named...is it exempt?
How about electrical energy, motion energy, sound energy etc...none of them are specifically named...are they exempt? Which energy do you think the second law is talking about since no specific type of energy is named?

when the second law states that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...

Do you think photons moving from the cooler Sun's surface to the hotter corona are spontaneous?
Do you think photons moving from my cooler flashlight to the hotter Sun are spontaneous?

 

[Wuwei]

that just describes the energy required to make the heat...now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...do I need to describe the work necessary to move cool to warm in an air conditioning unit again? It takes a great deal of effort to move cold to warm...and simply placing irons facing each other isn't going to do it.

That comes from your definition of spontaneity. Prior work was done. Not spontaneous.

Sorry guy.....this whole tangent is the result of you arguing against your interpretation of what I have said..

Your'e not making sense. My whole argument is using your arguments and looking at the consequences of your opinions in your world of "physics". It leads to contradictions.

That is called reductio ad absurdum.

Here is the essence your argument again: a hot iron can receive radiation energy from a colder iron because work went into heating the colder iron. Therefore neither iron emits energy spontaneously.

That is the nature of your physics. We have been using reductio ad absurdum many times but you keep dancing away, running and hiding, duck and cover, etc.

.

 

[jc456]

yep and so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law, and nothing on back radiation. still waiting. fk, how many posts now? you still haven't provided one observation.

so far still no observed evidence of cool to warm violating the second law,

That's great, because energy moving from cold to warm isn't a violation.

it is to the 2nd law. so you can get your noble prize for the violation of the 2nd law.

Do you feel that the Sun's surface radiating through the corona violates the 2nd? Why or why not?
Do you feel that a flashlight radiating to the Sun's surface violates the 2nd? Why or why not?

asked and answered. you need new material. like observed empirical evidence. post #1169 still nope!!

And there you go, running away again. LOL!

run away, it's you delinquent.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If he reverses himself on a single epicycle, his entire edifice will collapse.

He can't even say if photons from the Sun's surface are emitted spontaneously or not.

Yes, his epicycles are getting tighter. Sort of like two neutron stars circling closer and closer til they explode.

He won't comment on many things because he knows he will be caught at self-contradiction.

.

Says the person who cant even correctly do the math on Joules to watts yet thinks that Einstein was wrong on CO2's ability to radiate in our atmosphere...

yet thinks that Einstein was wrong on CO2's ability to radiate in our atmosphere...

Link?

You dont have a damn clue.. Weiwi used the thermal reaction of N2 and CO2 in a forced excited state to get CO2 to act like he thinks it should. He miss applied the science to get a result he wanted and you want.. Einstein's calculations and the paper he quoted, disprove him and you..

Cool story bro. Link?

I see Todd's affliction of head up ass is still present.. Read the thread...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, his epicycles are getting tighter. Sort of like two neutron stars circling closer and closer til they explode.

He won't comment on many things because he knows he will be caught at self-contradiction.

.

Says the person who cant even correctly do the math on Joules to watts yet thinks that Einstein was wrong on CO2's ability to radiate in our atmosphere...

yet thinks that Einstein was wrong on CO2's ability to radiate in our atmosphere...

Link?

You dont have a damn clue.. Weiwi used the thermal reaction of N2 and CO2 in a forced excited state to get CO2 to act like he thinks it should. He miss applied the science to get a result he wanted and you want.. Einstein's calculations and the paper he quoted, disprove him and you..

Cool story bro. Link?

I see Todd's affliction of head up ass is still present.. Read the thread...

Tell me more about magnetic photons. LOL!

 

[Wuwei]

You dont have a damn clue.. Weiwi used the thermal reaction of N2 and CO2 in a forced excited state to get CO2 to act like he thinks it should. He miss applied the science to get a result he wanted and you want.. Einstein's calculations and the paper he quoted, disprove him and you..

You are a liar. A total liar and you know it.

.

 

[jc456]

They feel this because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't allow heat (no mention of photons) to spontaneously flow from cooler matter to hotter matter unless work is done to move it.
.

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

Photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

Quantum - the smallest quantity of radiant energy.

You have been dodging this question for a long time...why?

What are photons if not simply energy...when the second law states that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...it is talking about photons since photons are nothing more than the smallest possible part of an electromagnetic field that can still be said to be associated with that electromagnetic field...Photons are energy....prove otherwise if you think that they aren't...

When the second law mentions energy, it doesn't mention any specific type of energy...are you operating under the assumption that all forms of energy not mentioned by the second law are then exempt from the second law because they weren't specifically named?

Chemical energy is not named....is that form of energy exempt?
Nuclear energy is not named...is it exempt?
How about electrical energy, motion energy, sound energy etc...none of them are specifically named...are they exempt? Which energy do you think the second law is talking about since no specific type of energy is named?

when the second law states that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...

Do you think photons moving from the cooler Sun's surface to the hotter corona are spontaneous?
Do you think photons moving from my cooler flashlight to the hotter Sun are spontaneous?

asked and answered.

 

[jc456]

that just describes the energy required to make the heat...now describe the work being done to move energy from the cooler iron to the warmer iron...do I need to describe the work necessary to move cool to warm in an air conditioning unit again? It takes a great deal of effort to move cold to warm...and simply placing irons facing each other isn't going to do it.

That comes from your definition of spontaneity. Prior work was done. Not spontaneous.

Sorry guy.....this whole tangent is the result of you arguing against your interpretation of what I have said..

Your'e not making sense. My whole argument is using your arguments and looking at the consequences of your opinions in your world of "physics". It leads to contradictions.

That is called reductio ad absurdum.

Here is the essence your argument again: a hot iron can receive radiation energy from a colder iron because work went into heating the colder iron. Therefore neither iron emits energy spontaneously.

That is the nature of your physics. We have been using reductio ad absurdum many times but you keep dancing away, running and hiding, duck and cover, etc.

.

why do you do that? why not just answer his fking questions? rewriting his question to fit your answer is like plagiarism or something, you aren't quoting what's his and instead intending it to look like he wrote it and it's yours. Sweet trick you got going poindexter.

And you admit it.