Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

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?

Still dodging....do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?...How about all the other forms of energy...exempt also because they aren't named?

 

[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..

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.

He can't read anything without reinterpreting it in some form or another...the result is that he is never arguing against anyone...he is only arguing against his version of what they said...

 

[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?

Still dodging....do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?...How about all the other forms of energy...exempt also because they aren't named?

do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?..

Why would they be exempt? Are they exempt from SB?

That reminds me, any backup for your silly claim about equilibrium? Any at all?

Ok, let's try a thought experiment. I don't expect you to understand, of course.

We launch a nifty solar observatory and put it into solar orbit, one million miles away from the Sun.

A scientist on board puts some nice new batteries into his nice new flashlight and turns it on.
Are the photons coming out of the flashlight spontaneous or non-spontaneous?
Are they emitted because work is being done?

Once you've avoided answering those questions, here's more you can ignore.
When the flashlight is pointed out of the porthole and aimed at the Sun, do the photons hit the Sun?
Does the filament unexpectedly go cold when pointed at the Sun?
Do the photons bounce off of some sort of "2nd Law" forcefield?
Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?

Thanks in advance for your cowardice.

 

[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.

.

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.

He can't read anything without reinterpreting it in some form or another...the result is that he is never arguing against anyone...he is only arguing against his version of what they said...

I told you what my interpretation is and I think it's accurate. Rather than just saying it's wrong, it would be helpful if you said exactly what is wrong about it. Otherwise you seem to be just dancing around or just bluffing.

.

 

[SSDD]

Why would they be exempt? Are they exempt from SB?

You are the one who has repeatedly suggested that they are when you have said...and I quote..." 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.[/quote]

That reminds me, any backup for your silly claim about equilibrium? Any at all?

Set T and Tc to the same number...that would mean that they are in equilibrium...when you do that P will equal zero...and before you say it, there is no expression in that equation from which to derive net...

We launch a nifty solar observatory and put it into solar orbit, one million miles away from the Sun.

A scientist on board puts some nice new batteries into his nice new flashlight and turns it on.
Are the photons coming out of the flashlight spontaneous or non-spontaneous?

You guys seem to have a very hard time with the whole spontaneous thing and it isn't that hard to understand.

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.

Would the filament in the light bulb light up with no energy input from its surroundings? If the answer is yes, then it would be a spontaneous process...if it requires energy from somewhere other than itself, then the answer is no...it is not a spontaneous process.

Are they emitted because work is being done?

What work do you think is being done? Are you not able to separate work from spontaneous and non spontaneous processes? Are they all jumbled up in your mind so that you think that one can't exist without the other?

When the flashlight is pointed out of the porthole and aimed at the Sun, do the photons hit the Sun?

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.

Which part of that do you believe suggests that the photons from the cooler filament would move to the warmer surface of the sun?

Does the filament unexpectedly go cold when pointed at the Sun?

Relative to the temperature of the surface of the sun, the filament is cold.

Do the photons bounce off of some sort of "2nd Law" forcefield?

The second law is a pretty straight forward statement...it says that energy will not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...what work do you think is being done to move the energy from the cooler filament to the warmer surface of the sun?

Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?

Is there anything in the second law that suggests that such a thing happens?

Thanks in advance for your cowardice.

You are the one who is continuously dodging here...How many times have I asked you whether photons are energy or not? And how many times have you dodged? So I will ask again....are photons energy?

thanks in advance for your cowardice...

 

[SSDD]

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.

He can't read anything without reinterpreting it in some form or another...the result is that he is never arguing against anyone...he is only arguing against his version of what they said...

I told you what my interpretation is and I think it's accurate. Rather than just saying it's wrong, it would be helpful if you said exactly what is wrong about it. Otherwise you seem to be just dancing around or just bluffing.

.

I told you that unless you can actually frame your argument based on what I actually said rather than your crazy assed interpretations, you can continue to talk to yourself about it..I am not going to restate everything I have ever said simply because you can't read and respond to what was actually said.

 

[Wuwei]

I told you that unless you can actually frame your argument based on what I actually said rather than your crazy assed interpretations, you can continue to talk to yourself about it..I am not going to restate everything I have ever said simply because you can't read and respond to what was actually said.

I'm not asking you to restate everything you said. I'm simply asking you to state what is wrong with my argument.

Here is what I think is the essence of 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.

I think it is accurate. If you don't think so, where do I differ? I can't read your mind.
.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy....not going to do it...If you can't read what I write and respond to that..then talk to yourself...

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy....not going to do it...If you can't read what I write and respond to that..then talk to yourself...

I did respond to exactly what you had been saying. Since you are running and hiding again, I have to conclude you have no answer. So we are left with your serious contradiction: every radiation phenomenon on earth is never spontaneous and can therefore radiate to any other object at any temperature.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would they be exempt? Are they exempt from SB?

You are the one who has repeatedly suggested that they are when you have said...and I quote..." 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.

That reminds me, any backup for your silly claim about equilibrium? Any at all?

Set T and Tc to the same number...that would mean that they are in equilibrium...when you do that P will equal zero...and before you say it, there is no expression in that equation from which to derive net...

We launch a nifty solar observatory and put it into solar orbit, one million miles away from the Sun.

A scientist on board puts some nice new batteries into his nice new flashlight and turns it on.
Are the photons coming out of the flashlight spontaneous or non-spontaneous?

You guys seem to have a very hard time with the whole spontaneous thing and it isn't that hard to understand.

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.

Would the filament in the light bulb light up with no energy input from its surroundings? If the answer is yes, then it would be a spontaneous process...if it requires energy from somewhere other than itself, then the answer is no...it is not a spontaneous process.

Are they emitted because work is being done?

What work do you think is being done? Are you not able to separate work from spontaneous and non spontaneous processes? Are they all jumbled up in your mind so that you think that one can't exist without the other?

When the flashlight is pointed out of the porthole and aimed at the Sun, do the photons hit the Sun?

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.

Which part of that do you believe suggests that the photons from the cooler filament would move to the warmer surface of the sun?

Does the filament unexpectedly go cold when pointed at the Sun?

Relative to the temperature of the surface of the sun, the filament is cold.

Do the photons bounce off of some sort of "2nd Law" forcefield?

The second law is a pretty straight forward statement...it says that energy will not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...what work do you think is being done to move the energy from the cooler filament to the warmer surface of the sun?

Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?

Is there anything in the second law that suggests that such a thing happens?

Thanks in advance for your cowardice.

You are the one who is continuously dodging here...How many times have I asked you whether photons are energy or not? And how many times have you dodged? So I will ask again....are photons energy?

thanks in advance for your cowardice...[/QUOTE]

You are the one who has repeatedly suggested that they are

I have never said photons are heat.

Thanks for the formula for net power. You have any backup for no radiating at equilibrium?

There must be dozens of articles and textbooks you could reference. No? Not a single one? Weird.

if it requires energy from somewhere other than itself, then the answer is no...it is not a spontaneous process.

Well, the filament requires energy from the battery. So flashlight photons are not spontaneous.


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

We agree, energy from a cooler flashlight can flow to a higher temperature object.

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.​

​

Which part of that do you believe suggests that the photons from the cooler filament would move to the warmer surface of the sun?​

The part where we agreed photons from the flashlight are not spontaneous.

Change your mind already?

​

The second law is a pretty straight forward statement...it says that energy will not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...what work do you think is being done to move the energy from the cooler filament to the warmer surface of the sun?​

The energy from the battery that causes non-spontaneous photons to be created.


Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?​

​

Is there anything in the second law that suggests that such a thing happens?​

​

The 2nd Law doesn't, your weird misunderstanding of it suggests they aren't allowed to hit hotter matter.​

Trying to get a better grasp of your unique mechanism. Either photons aren't allowed, which was my point about the hot filament cooling when pointed at the Sun. Or photons are allowed to travel toward, but prevented from hitting hotter matter by some sort of forcefield, or somehow having their path bent around the hotter target.​

​

Can't seem to get a logical answer from you.​

​

So I will ask again....are photons energy?​

​

 

[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.

He can't read anything without reinterpreting it in some form or another...the result is that he is never arguing against anyone...he is only arguing against his version of what they said...

Again, he admitted it . Funny shit

 

[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?

Still dodging....do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?...How about all the other forms of energy...exempt also because they aren't named?

do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?..

Why would they be exempt? Are they exempt from SB?

That reminds me, any backup for your silly claim about equilibrium? Any at all?

Ok, let's try a thought experiment. I don't expect you to understand, of course.

We launch a nifty solar observatory and put it into solar orbit, one million miles away from the Sun.

A scientist on board puts some nice new batteries into his nice new flashlight and turns it on.
Are the photons coming out of the flashlight spontaneous or non-spontaneous?
Are they emitted because work is being done?

Once you've avoided answering those questions, here's more you can ignore.
When the flashlight is pointed out of the porthole and aimed at the Sun, do the photons hit the Sun?
Does the filament unexpectedly go cold when pointed at the Sun?
Do the photons bounce off of some sort of "2nd Law" forcefield?
Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?

Thanks in advance for your cowardice.

Ahh the guy with no observed empirical evidence. Can’t show cold flow to heat! He’ll use the sun, hahaha the experts can’t explain the sun. But damn Todd can

Hey Todd, How is it the corona is hotter?

 

[jc456]

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.

He can't read anything without reinterpreting it in some form or another...the result is that he is never arguing against anyone...he is only arguing against his version of what they said...

I told you what my interpretation is and I think it's accurate. Rather than just saying it's wrong, it would be helpful if you said exactly what is wrong about it. Otherwise you seem to be just dancing around or just bluffing.

.

Hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha dude you got issues

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Still dodging....do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?...How about all the other forms of energy...exempt also because they aren't named?

do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?..

Why would they be exempt? Are they exempt from SB?

That reminds me, any backup for your silly claim about equilibrium? Any at all?

Ok, let's try a thought experiment. I don't expect you to understand, of course.

We launch a nifty solar observatory and put it into solar orbit, one million miles away from the Sun.

A scientist on board puts some nice new batteries into his nice new flashlight and turns it on.
Are the photons coming out of the flashlight spontaneous or non-spontaneous?
Are they emitted because work is being done?

Once you've avoided answering those questions, here's more you can ignore.
When the flashlight is pointed out of the porthole and aimed at the Sun, do the photons hit the Sun?
Does the filament unexpectedly go cold when pointed at the Sun?
Do the photons bounce off of some sort of "2nd Law" forcefield?
Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?

Thanks in advance for your cowardice.

Ahh the guy with no observed empirical evidence. Can’t show cold flow to heat! He’ll use the sun, hahaha the experts can’t explain the sun. But damn Todd can

Hey Todd, How is it the corona is hotter?

Ahh the guy with no observed empirical evidence.

Like your evidence that flashlight photons can't hit the Sun? DURR.

 

[jc456]

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?

Still dodging....do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?...How about all the other forms of energy...exempt also because they aren't named?

do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?..

Why would they be exempt? Are they exempt from SB?

That reminds me, any backup for your silly claim about equilibrium? Any at all?

Ok, let's try a thought experiment. I don't expect you to understand, of course.

We launch a nifty solar observatory and put it into solar orbit, one million miles away from the Sun.

A scientist on board puts some nice new batteries into his nice new flashlight and turns it on.
Are the photons coming out of the flashlight spontaneous or non-spontaneous?
Are they emitted because work is being done?

Once you've avoided answering those questions, here's more you can ignore.
When the flashlight is pointed out of the porthole and aimed at the Sun, do the photons hit the Sun?
Does the filament unexpectedly go cold when pointed at the Sun?
Do the photons bounce off of some sort of "2nd Law" forcefield?
Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?

Thanks in advance for your cowardice.

Ahh the guy with no observed empirical evidence. Can’t show cold flow to heat! He’ll use the sun, hahaha the experts can’t explain the sun. But damn Todd can

Hey Todd, How is it the corona is hotter?

Ahh the guy with no observed empirical evidence.

Like your evidence that flashlight photons can't hit the Sun? DURR.

Prove they do! Go . That’s called observed empirical evidence and you got shit

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Still dodging....do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?...How about all the other forms of energy...exempt also because they aren't named?

do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?..

Why would they be exempt? Are they exempt from SB?

That reminds me, any backup for your silly claim about equilibrium? Any at all?

Ok, let's try a thought experiment. I don't expect you to understand, of course.

We launch a nifty solar observatory and put it into solar orbit, one million miles away from the Sun.

A scientist on board puts some nice new batteries into his nice new flashlight and turns it on.
Are the photons coming out of the flashlight spontaneous or non-spontaneous?
Are they emitted because work is being done?

Once you've avoided answering those questions, here's more you can ignore.
When the flashlight is pointed out of the porthole and aimed at the Sun, do the photons hit the Sun?
Does the filament unexpectedly go cold when pointed at the Sun?
Do the photons bounce off of some sort of "2nd Law" forcefield?
Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?

Thanks in advance for your cowardice.

Ahh the guy with no observed empirical evidence. Can’t show cold flow to heat! He’ll use the sun, hahaha the experts can’t explain the sun. But damn Todd can

Hey Todd, How is it the corona is hotter?

Ahh the guy with no observed empirical evidence.

Like your evidence that flashlight photons can't hit the Sun? DURR.

Prove they do! Go . That’s called observed empirical evidence and you got shit

Explain why they don't.

 

[mamooth]

Fascinating, how SSDD and jc and Billy just can't figure out that heat flow and energy flow aren't the same thing.

Heat is a macroscopic statistical quantity. It obeys the second law.

Energy exists at the quantum level, and it doesn't care about the second law. Individual bits of energy can fly wherever they please. Only the net sum of that energy flow has to obey the second law.

It's not rocket science, it's been explained to them, but they still fail at it. Every Statistical Mechanics class (generally taught in third year undergrad physics) teaches the non-crazy version of reality. Statistical Mechanics teaches why the Second Law exists. I don't think any of the PSI kooks has gone beyond Physics 101.

 

[Wuwei]

Fascinating, how SSDD and jc and Billy just can't figure out that heat flow and energy flow aren't the same thing.

Heat is a macroscopic statistical quantity. It obeys the second law.

Energy exists at the quantum level, and it doesn't care about the second law. Individual bits of energy can fly wherever they please. Only the net sum of that energy flow has to obey the second law.

It's not rocket science, it's been explained to them, but they still fail at it. Every Statistical Mechanics class (generally taught in third year undergrad physics) teaches the non-crazy version of reality. Statistical Mechanics teaches why the Second Law exists. I don't think any of the PSI kooks has gone beyond Physics 101.

I agree. They all have had an opportunity to see what the physics is. It has been shown to them many times with references, but I think it is much deeper than what you say.

SSDD, Billy, and their sock puppets, Frank, JC, Westwall, SunsetTommy reject basic science. Billy and SSDD have the same temperament as a flat-earther. They are psychopaths with deep rooted biases hardwired in their brains that form an aberrant resistance to anything that does not conform to that bias. They have an almost panicky rejection of science. Their answer to any sane approach is to confabulate and ad lib anything that comes to their mind, relevant or not. They reinforce their anti-science with intense mockery, bluff, and bluster. This plays well to the other sock puppets who give them an "agree" or "winner" rating, and give the more science minded a "funny". In one sense they may not be liars, but simply abnormally not in touch with reality. It's a sad state of affairs to bastardize basic physics to maintain their pathological comfort. An ill wind blows in this country.

.

 

[jc456]

Still dodging....do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?...How about all the other forms of energy...exempt also because they aren't named?

do you believe that photons are exempt from the second law simply because they are not mentioned specifically?..

Why would they be exempt? Are they exempt from SB?

That reminds me, any backup for your silly claim about equilibrium? Any at all?

Ok, let's try a thought experiment. I don't expect you to understand, of course.

We launch a nifty solar observatory and put it into solar orbit, one million miles away from the Sun.

A scientist on board puts some nice new batteries into his nice new flashlight and turns it on.
Are the photons coming out of the flashlight spontaneous or non-spontaneous?
Are they emitted because work is being done?

Once you've avoided answering those questions, here's more you can ignore.
When the flashlight is pointed out of the porthole and aimed at the Sun, do the photons hit the Sun?
Does the filament unexpectedly go cold when pointed at the Sun?
Do the photons bounce off of some sort of "2nd Law" forcefield?
Do the photons somehow bend around the Sun to avoid hitting hotter matter?

Thanks in advance for your cowardice.

Ahh the guy with no observed empirical evidence. Can’t show cold flow to heat! He’ll use the sun, hahaha the experts can’t explain the sun. But damn Todd can

Hey Todd, How is it the corona is hotter?

Ahh the guy with no observed empirical evidence.

Like your evidence that flashlight photons can't hit the Sun? DURR.

Prove they do! Go . That’s called observed empirical evidence and you got shit

Explain why they don't.

prove they do

I'll give you a break, shine your flash light at the space station, give them an SOS and see if they respond! too fking funny.

Oh, one more thing, why do they change the batteries when the light dims? you think the user can still see his intended target? hahahahahahahahaha

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too Funny...

A friend emailed me and ask me to look at a post over at WUWT and give him my take on a comment. It made me take a step back and I realized that the very basic laws of gases disprove AGW.

Here is the comment;

"The Stefan-Boltzmann equation as applied to CO2 was derived for a molecule. It was not derived for a bulk gas mixture like Earth’s atmosphere. One can plausibly assume that one activated molecule is incapable of causing a 1degree C change in atmospheric temperature. Not one molecule, not 10, not even 10 million.

There is a logical lower limit to the concentration of CO2 that is capable of causing the claimed change.

What is this lower limit?
How is it measured?"


This one of those light bulb moments. Stefan-Boltzman was not designed for our atmosphere thus it is incapable of telling us how our atmosphere will work in a bulk gas mixture. Then I looked at his questions and they kill AGW DEAD!

So I am now asking the warmers here to define what the lower limit of the gas is required to create any effect? What is the Upper limit where the gas no longer has any affect? Now quantify your response with the math and reasoning used to measure these levels...

Source

At current levels, CO2 is incapable of any effect due to water vapor in our atmosphere...