Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[mamooth]

well you go verify that the flashlight light Todd shines at it hits it.

We don't have to use flashlights. We can use observations of binary star pairs.

When a cooler binary star is eclipsed by a warmer star, relative to earth, we do not see the eclipsed star shining through the star in front of it.

That means one of these options has to be true.

A. The photons from the cooler star are absorbed by the warmer star.
B. The cooler star, possessing great intelligence, refuses to radiate in the direction of the hotter star.
C. The cooler star does radiate towards the warmer star, but the photons then vanish into a magical mystery dimension, being that they're exempt from conservation of energy.

"A" is the option chosen by sane people.

Which option do you choose? If you have a different option, please explain it to everyone, in detail.

 

[jc456]

well you go verify that the flashlight light Todd shines at it hits it.

We don't have to use flashlights. We can use observations of binary star pairs.

When a cooler binary star is eclipsed by a warmer star, relative to earth, we do not see the eclipsed star shining through the star in front of it.

That means one of these options has to be true.

A. The photons from the cooler star are absorbed by the warmer star.
B. The cooler star, possessing great intelligence, refuses to radiate in the direction of the hotter star.
C. The cooler star does radiate towards the warmer star, but the photons then vanish into a magical mystery dimension, being that they're exempt from conservation of energy.

"A" is the option chosen by sane people.

Which option do you choose? If you have a different option, please explain it to everyone, in detail.

Dudette, the only light you see from a star is an explosion and the light off the planets is from the sun! You don’t know much about space.

BTW, if the star doesn’t exist, how does it absorb? Hmmm

 

[mamooth]

Dudette, the only light you see from a star is an explosion and the light off the planets is from the sun! You don’t know much about space.

BTW, if the star doesn’t exist, how does it absorb? Hmmm

I'm sorry. I had assumed you weren't a complete drooling retard. My bad.

 

[jc456]

Dudette, the only light you see from a star is an explosion and the light off the planets is from the sun! You don’t know much about space.

BTW, if the star doesn’t exist, how does it absorb? Hmmm

I'm sorry. I had assumed you weren't a complete drooling retard. My bad.

And you know absolutely zero about space.

What do you need me to post to educate you?

Star Formation

 

[mamooth]

What do you need me to post to educate you?

I asked you how photons and stars behave. In response, you went off on a lunatic rant about planets and exploding stars that don't actually exist. That had absolutely nothing to do with the question, and it sounded completely insane.

If you're too gutless to answer a simple question, just say so. Don't deflect. That makes you look even more craven and dishonest.

Now, let's try this again. Which option do you choose?

A. The photons from the cooler star are absorbed by the warmer star.
B. The cooler star, possessing great intelligence, refuses to radiate in the direction of the hotter star.
C. The cooler star does radiate towards the warmer star, but the photons then vanish into a magical mystery dimension, being that they're exempt from conservation of energy.

 

[jc456]

What do you need me to post to educate you?

I asked you how photons and stars behave. In response, you went off on a lunatic rant about planets and exploding stars that don't actually exist. That had absolutely nothing to do with the question, and it sounded completely insane.

If you're too gutless to answer a simple question, just say so. Don't deflect. That makes you look even more craven and dishonest.

Now, let's try this again. Which option do you choose?

A. The photons from the cooler star are absorbed by the warmer star.
B. The cooler star, possessing great intelligence, refuses to radiate in the direction of the hotter star.
C. The cooler star does radiate towards the warmer star, but the photons then vanish into a magical mystery dimension, being that they're exempt from conservation of energy.

Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold

 

[mamooth]

Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold

You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?

 

[ReinyDays]

No sweat...

I'm sure the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been explained to you multiple times ...

What I'd like you to focus on is Planck's Blackbody Radiation Theory ... you seem to think this is bogus and safety dismissed ... yet then you rely on an equation that's based on blackbody radiation ... if you don't accept Planck's theory, then you can't use SB ...

You don't see with your own eyes that the iron is glowing? ... can't help you with that ... not a thought experiment, I encourage you to do this yourself ... safely ...

 

[SSDD]

No sweat...

I'm sure the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been explained to you multiple times ...

Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.

What I'd like you to focus on is Planck's Blackbody Radiation Theory ... you seem to think this is bogus and safety dismissed ... yet then you rely on an equation that's based on blackbody radiation ... if you don't accept Planck's theory, then you can't use SB ...

Planck's law also deals with a radiator radiating into a cooler background...no two way energy flow there either...

You don't see with your own eyes that the iron is glowing? ...

Of course I do...I also happen to be out here in the cooler surroundings and it is glowing in my direction...it is not, however radiating back into the hotter coals which it is in intimate contact with.

can't help you with that ... not a thought experiment, I encourage you to do this yourself ... safely ...

No need...have seen it and can explain it without having to violate the second law of thermodynamics..energy moving spontaneously from the cooler iron to the warmer coals is a violation of that law. I will keep watching for it to be rewritten in terms of net though...when it is, I will have to alter my position...if, there is ample empirical evidence to support the change...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No sweat...

I'm sure the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been explained to you multiple times ...

Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.

What I'd like you to focus on is Planck's Blackbody Radiation Theory ... you seem to think this is bogus and safety dismissed ... yet then you rely on an equation that's based on blackbody radiation ... if you don't accept Planck's theory, then you can't use SB ...

Planck's law also deals with a radiator radiating into a cooler background...no two way energy flow there either...

You don't see with your own eyes that the iron is glowing? ...

Of course I do...I also happen to be out here in the cooler surroundings and it is glowing in my direction...it is not, however radiating back into the hotter coals which it is in intimate contact with.

can't help you with that ... not a thought experiment, I encourage you to do this yourself ... safely ...

No need...have seen it and can explain it without having to violate the second law of thermodynamics..energy moving spontaneously from the cooler iron to the warmer coals is a violation of that law. I will keep watching for it to be rewritten in terms of net though...when it is, I will have to alter my position...if, there is ample empirical evidence to support the change...

it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object

Love your unique definition of spontaneous.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.

The second law has been understood in terms of statistical mechanics in 1877.
The outcome is a proof of the law of entropy from very simple principles.
The Clausius and Carnot form of the second law can never be proven.

Planck's law also deals with a radiator radiating into a cooler background...no two way energy flow there either...

Planks law never considers any background at any temperature.
It applies no matter what the temperature is.

.

 

[jc456]

No sweat...

I'm sure the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been explained to you multiple times ...

Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.

What I'd like you to focus on is Planck's Blackbody Radiation Theory ... you seem to think this is bogus and safety dismissed ... yet then you rely on an equation that's based on blackbody radiation ... if you don't accept Planck's theory, then you can't use SB ...

Planck's law also deals with a radiator radiating into a cooler background...no two way energy flow there either...

You don't see with your own eyes that the iron is glowing? ...

Of course I do...I also happen to be out here in the cooler surroundings and it is glowing in my direction...it is not, however radiating back into the hotter coals which it is in intimate contact with.

can't help you with that ... not a thought experiment, I encourage you to do this yourself ... safely ...

No need...have seen it and can explain it without having to violate the second law of thermodynamics..energy moving spontaneously from the cooler iron to the warmer coals is a violation of that law. I will keep watching for it to be rewritten in terms of net though...when it is, I will have to alter my position...if, there is ample empirical evidence to support the change...

it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object

Love your unique definition of spontaneous.

The second law is wrong?

 

[jc456]

Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold

You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one! Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate? Each is its own gaseous item? The earth is ice cold compared to any star. Unless you got any material that shows observed radiation

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No sweat...

I'm sure the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been explained to you multiple times ...

Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.

What I'd like you to focus on is Planck's Blackbody Radiation Theory ... you seem to think this is bogus and safety dismissed ... yet then you rely on an equation that's based on blackbody radiation ... if you don't accept Planck's theory, then you can't use SB ...

Planck's law also deals with a radiator radiating into a cooler background...no two way energy flow there either...

You don't see with your own eyes that the iron is glowing? ...

Of course I do...I also happen to be out here in the cooler surroundings and it is glowing in my direction...it is not, however radiating back into the hotter coals which it is in intimate contact with.

can't help you with that ... not a thought experiment, I encourage you to do this yourself ... safely ...

No need...have seen it and can explain it without having to violate the second law of thermodynamics..energy moving spontaneously from the cooler iron to the warmer coals is a violation of that law. I will keep watching for it to be rewritten in terms of net though...when it is, I will have to alter my position...if, there is ample empirical evidence to support the change...

it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object

Love your unique definition of spontaneous.

The second law is wrong?

Who said that? Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold

You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one! Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate? Each is its own gaseous item? The earth is ice cold compared to any star. Unless you got any material that shows observed radiation

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one

The Sun isn't close to being the hottest star.

Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate?

According to SSDD's misinterpretation, a 6000K star won't radiate toward an 8000K star.
Right?

 

[jc456]

No sweat...

I'm sure the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been explained to you multiple times ...

Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.

What I'd like you to focus on is Planck's Blackbody Radiation Theory ... you seem to think this is bogus and safety dismissed ... yet then you rely on an equation that's based on blackbody radiation ... if you don't accept Planck's theory, then you can't use SB ...

Planck's law also deals with a radiator radiating into a cooler background...no two way energy flow there either...

You don't see with your own eyes that the iron is glowing? ...

Of course I do...I also happen to be out here in the cooler surroundings and it is glowing in my direction...it is not, however radiating back into the hotter coals which it is in intimate contact with.

can't help you with that ... not a thought experiment, I encourage you to do this yourself ... safely ...

No need...have seen it and can explain it without having to violate the second law of thermodynamics..energy moving spontaneously from the cooler iron to the warmer coals is a violation of that law. I will keep watching for it to be rewritten in terms of net though...when it is, I will have to alter my position...if, there is ample empirical evidence to support the change...

it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object

Love your unique definition of spontaneous.

The second law is wrong?

Who said that? Link?

You questioned SSDD’s post so you implied he was wrong. If so, then you’re questioning the accuracy of the second law statement

 

[jc456]

Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold

You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one! Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate? Each is its own gaseous item? The earth is ice cold compared to any star. Unless you got any material that shows observed radiation

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one

The Sun isn't close to being the hottest star.

Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate?

According to SSDD's misinterpretation, a 6000K star won't radiate toward an 8000K star.
Right?

According to the second law yep. Again, all you have to do is show an observation of it occurring.

And there you go implying the second law wrong

 

[jc456]

Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold

You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one! Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate? Each is its own gaseous item? The earth is ice cold compared to any star. Unless you got any material that shows observed radiation

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one

The Sun isn't close to being the hottest star.

Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate?

According to SSDD's misinterpretation, a 6000K star won't radiate toward an 8000K star.
Right?

Which star is hotter?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm sure the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been explained to you multiple times ...

Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.

What I'd like you to focus on is Planck's Blackbody Radiation Theory ... you seem to think this is bogus and safety dismissed ... yet then you rely on an equation that's based on blackbody radiation ... if you don't accept Planck's theory, then you can't use SB ...

Planck's law also deals with a radiator radiating into a cooler background...no two way energy flow there either...

You don't see with your own eyes that the iron is glowing? ...

Of course I do...I also happen to be out here in the cooler surroundings and it is glowing in my direction...it is not, however radiating back into the hotter coals which it is in intimate contact with.

can't help you with that ... not a thought experiment, I encourage you to do this yourself ... safely ...

No need...have seen it and can explain it without having to violate the second law of thermodynamics..energy moving spontaneously from the cooler iron to the warmer coals is a violation of that law. I will keep watching for it to be rewritten in terms of net though...when it is, I will have to alter my position...if, there is ample empirical evidence to support the change...

it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object

Love your unique definition of spontaneous.

The second law is wrong?

Who said that? Link?

You questioned SSDD’s post so you implied he was wrong. If so, then you’re questioning the accuracy of the second law statement

You questioned SSDD’s post so you implied he was wrong.

Yes, his definition of spontaneous is wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold

You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one! Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate? Each is its own gaseous item? The earth is ice cold compared to any star. Unless you got any material that shows observed radiation

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one

The Sun isn't close to being the hottest star.

Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate?

According to SSDD's misinterpretation, a 6000K star won't radiate toward an 8000K star.
Right?

According to the second law yep. Again, all you have to do is show an observation of it occurring.

And there you go implying the second law wrong

According to the second law yep. Again, all you have to do is show an observation of it occurring.

The 2nd Law says a 6000K star doesn't radiate toward an 8000K star?

That's why we like mocking you, you say the dumbest things.