Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[SSDD]

Are you under the impression that no work is being done to make your screen emit that light?

Here's the fatal flaw in your reasoning ... even if we allow your unique brand of physics, the greenhouse effect is still valid ... yes, my screen is drawing 10 to 20 W ... the work done is to increase the temperature of a specific point on my screen such that it will emit energy to my eye ... but leaving other points too cool to emit ... the same is true on the Earth's surface, there's a point hotter than the carbon dioxide and a photon zooms over ... then there's also a point on the Earth's surface that is cooler than carbon dioxide and again a photon zooms over back to the Earth ... ergo, the greenhouse effect ... in both steps, energy moves from hot to cold ...

I don't know if you're aware of this, but that's not SB's blackbody equation you posted above ... I see it superficially appears to be, but it most certainly is not ... now generally I'm willing to step past an obvious error ... except now you're claiming the c in Planck's Law is the speed of light in a vacuum ... nothing could be further from the truth, even with your unique brand of physics ... it's like you've learned a few trivia facts and are trying to string these together in some manner of scientific theory, without understanding all the matters between ... just like the climate change Alarmists ... and just like Alarmists, you stubbornly hold onto your half truths without understanding what these half truths mean ...

Take some time and try to learn "lamestream physics" before you criticize it ... and take a class in chemistry, not only will this give you a better understanding of the practical aspects of thermodynamics, but it's about the only place you'll get information on the physics of solutions ... I'll leave it to your imagination why that's important to SB ...

You have to understand SSDD's unique "dimmer switch" theory of emissions.

Two identical objects, one at 400K one at 500K.
People who understand SB will see that the cooler radiates X units of power, the hotter 2.44X units of power.
In SSDD's world, the hotter object "knows" the temperature of the cooler non-emitter, magically, and
reduces it's radiating to 1.44X units of power.

This "smart emitter" magic can occur over billions of light years, not just between nearby objects.

Actually, the dimmer switch is simply the best theory you can come up with for why anything might obey the law of physics...your theory explains what you see to you...therefore the theory must be correct...it must be a true fact.

And I didn't make up the properties of photons...but those who did say that they exist simultaneously across the entirety of their path...don't like it...take it up with the people who made them up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you under the impression that no work is being done to make your screen emit that light?

Here's the fatal flaw in your reasoning ... even if we allow your unique brand of physics, the greenhouse effect is still valid ... yes, my screen is drawing 10 to 20 W ... the work done is to increase the temperature of a specific point on my screen such that it will emit energy to my eye ... but leaving other points too cool to emit ... the same is true on the Earth's surface, there's a point hotter than the carbon dioxide and a photon zooms over ... then there's also a point on the Earth's surface that is cooler than carbon dioxide and again a photon zooms over back to the Earth ... ergo, the greenhouse effect ... in both steps, energy moves from hot to cold ...

I don't know if you're aware of this, but that's not SB's blackbody equation you posted above ... I see it superficially appears to be, but it most certainly is not ... now generally I'm willing to step past an obvious error ... except now you're claiming the c in Planck's Law is the speed of light in a vacuum ... nothing could be further from the truth, even with your unique brand of physics ... it's like you've learned a few trivia facts and are trying to string these together in some manner of scientific theory, without understanding all the matters between ... just like the climate change Alarmists ... and just like Alarmists, you stubbornly hold onto your half truths without understanding what these half truths mean ...

Take some time and try to learn "lamestream physics" before you criticize it ... and take a class in chemistry, not only will this give you a better understanding of the practical aspects of thermodynamics, but it's about the only place you'll get information on the physics of solutions ... I'll leave it to your imagination why that's important to SB ...

You have to understand SSDD's unique "dimmer switch" theory of emissions.

Two identical objects, one at 400K one at 500K.
People who understand SB will see that the cooler radiates X units of power, the hotter 2.44X units of power.
In SSDD's world, the hotter object "knows" the temperature of the cooler non-emitter, magically, and
reduces it's radiating to 1.44X units of power.

This "smart emitter" magic can occur over billions of light years, not just between nearby objects.

Actually, the dimmer switch is simply the best theory you can come up with for why anything might obey the law of physics...your theory explains what you see to you...therefore the theory must be correct...it must be a true fact.

And I didn't make up the properties of photons...but those who did say that they exist simultaneously across the entirety of their path...don't like it...take it up with the people who made them up.

Actually, the dimmer switch is simply the best theory you can come up with for why anything might obey the law of physics..

Objects radiating according to the laws of physics DO NOT reduce, or stop, their emissions based on the temperature of nearby (or billions of light years distant) objects.

In the real world.

In yours, they magically know surrounding temps, without receiving that info through photons, and "simply reduce or stop entirely" their emitting.

 

[jc456]

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?

Lots of stars are hotter than the Sun.

Then naming one shouldn’t be hard

LMGTFY

Hbypo

 

[jc456]

Nope, it’s just physics

 

[ReinyDays]

The greenhouse effect as described by climate science valid if, and only if radiation is the primary mode of energy transport through the troposphere ...

Climate science like they teach in trade schools and community colleges? ... I think that's required to get an Environmental Science certificate ... have no idea what they teach there ... apparently not much, enough to work in an Environment Science job? ...

Wait ... What ?!? ... which part of the 9.1 x10^13 watts of Earth's emissions doesn't enter outer space in it's radiative form? ...

P = eoAT^4 is the greybody form of an ideal radiator, notice no concern about what makes it grey, strictly immaterial the to surface of our greybody and our only concern is how grey it is, as expressed by the dimensionless emissivity ratio ... the lower the emissivity, the higher the temperature of the surface ... AGW Theory predicts that more carbon dioxide lowers e, thus increasing T on the Earth's surface (just how much is still unclear) ... I'm sorry, you can't have a minus T(C) on one side of the equation unless you have a minus T(C) on the other side ... that's simple algebra ... and T(C) of outer space is 3 K ... the Earth's surface is 277 K blackbody (293 K greybody), outer space is 3 K ... energy flows from the Earth into outer space ... at 9.1 x 10^13 watts to be exact ... hot to cold ...

I absolutely do not want to hear about dimmer switches ... we've avoided perpetual motion so far and I don't what to press the issue ... credit where credit's due and all that ...

 

[Wuwei]

This may be the heart of our disagreement ... radiation is emitted radially ... in all directions ... that what we mean by a radiator, something that emits energy radially ...

That may be what you mean by a radiator...but that is not what we mean by radiator, nor is that how the word is defined...the science dictionary defines a radiator as a body that emits radiation...the radial emission part is an assumption.

Unfortunately assumption has become an accepted means of logic in physics...it is rampant and becoming more rampant all the time.

CAUTION: HERETICAL SPEECH AHEAD. THE NATURE OF THIS SPEECH WILL CHALLENGE THINKING MINDS BUT WILL ONLY OFFEND THOSE HOLDING QUASI RELIGIOUS FAITH IN THE OMNIPOTENCE OF SCIENCE..IF YOU FALL INTO THE SECOND CATEGORY, TURN BACK NOW FOR YOU WILL SURELY BE OFFENDED....AND POSSIBLY OUTRAGED.

Now that my due diligence has been done.

Assumption. It has become part and parcel of physics and has led to a necessity of circular reasoning in which assumptions are accepted and lauded as true facts.

For example:

Suppose we make the assumption that a proton is made of three quarks. We can then theoretically derive a formula for the observed mass of a proton...therefore, a proton is made up of three quarks. It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that light is made up of particles...lets call them photons. We can then theoretically derive a formula for photoelectricity which just happens to agree with certain observations that we have made...therefore light is made of photons. It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that space time is curved. We can then theoretically explain observations of gravitation. Therefore space time is curved....It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that there was a big bang. We can then theorize about the observed expansion of the universe. Therefore there was a big bang. It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that there is a big old black hole at the center of a galaxy. Now we can theorize about the observation of the shape of a galaxy. Therefore there is a big old black hole at the center of a galaxy. It must be true fact.

Suppose we assume that the space time observations of different observers are connected by the Lorentz transformation of special relativity. Now we can theorize about the observation that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Therefore, all space time observations of different observers are connected by the Lorentz transformation.

Suppose we assume that the earth is sitting on the back of 4 invisible turtles. Now we can theorize about why the earth does not fall down even though everything else that is not supported falls down. Therefore, the earth sits on the backs of 4 big invisible turtles. It must be true fact.

A thinking person sees the possibility of flawed logic in those assumptions immediately. A thinking person sees that sort of thinking as pseudoscience...not actual science.

There is the fact that a particular phenomenon was observed...and the observation can be theoretically explained if certain assumptions are made. The fact that an observation was made is then used to support the claim that the assumption is not mere assumption, but true fact. Protons ARE made up of 3 quarks....light IS made up of photons.....space time IS curved...there WAS a big bang.....the Lorentz transformation MUST connect different observations....the earth IS sitting on the backs of 4 invisible turtles. CO2 IS a critical greenhouse gas....

In all of the examples above, it is not possible to directly check to see if the assumption is valid which is the pseudoscientific beauty of post modern physics...The assumption is exempt from direct experimentation and validation...it can only be tested indirectly. The assumption is correct because the theorized explanation of the observation supports the theorized cause for the observation...The assumption must be true because it is the only way the theoretical explanation seems to be possible...The inability to come up with a plausible alternative explanation is then presented as evidence ..and the more we restrict our creativity and perspective, the more sure we get that we are right...circular thinking at its best.

There are no direct observations and measurements of energy exchange between objects at equilibrium, nor are there observations and measurements of energy moving back and forth spontaneously between objects at different temperatures..

So without that ... then ... you say it's impossible for the cold Earth to transfer energy to the warm atmospheric gases through IR radiation...

Actually, I have never said that...I have said that the cold atmospheric gasses can not warm the warmer earth earth....except, of course in rare instances of temperature inversion where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface...

thus the greenhouse effect is non-existent ... you'll need to be more clever on how you algebraically manipulate SB than what you've posted ...

I have not manipulated anything...I only stated in plain english the energy exchange that the equation describes....You assume net, so you see net in an equation from which net can not be derived...therefore net must be a true fact...

And there can be no radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere which is so completely dominated by convection and conduction..rare indeed, is the greenhouse gas molecule that actually gets to emit radiation...

In the troposphere, the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited greenhouse molecule can trans for its energy to another gas molecule ) most often N2 is about a nanosecond. The mean decay time for an excited molecule in the atmosphere to emit that energy is about a second.

So when a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs some IR radiation, about 99.9999999% of the time, it will lose that energy via collision also known as conduction...

Therefore conduction and convection are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere..radiation is such a small player in the troposphere that it is hardly worth mentioning...and yet, we theorized about observations of energy in the atmosphere, and came up with one that seemingly explains the observations and therefore, by fiat, it must be true...even though observation with more and more sensitive instrumentation over the years have shown the original theorization to have been incorrect.

There is certainly a "greenhouse" effect if you like that term that keeps us warm at night, and from burning up in the day, but it is not radiative in nature.

I showed you how easy it is to demonstrate the equation you give is for net power ... try setting T(c) to 3 K ... see if that makes a difference ...

Actually, you theorized...you didn't show me anything..and you completely ignored the fact that you have your iron bar laying in the hot coals...and the underside of the bar, which is in contact with the coals is not radiating anything...AGAIN...the laws of physics state that there can be no radiation between objects that are in intimate contact...the underside of the bar is in intimate contact with the bed of coals...the iron bar is conducting energy through the side that is in intimate contact with the coals and radiating energy out into the cooler atmosphere precisely as both the second law and the SB law predict..

I guess I'm just a pansy for the past century's finest minds ...

I appreciate fine minds...but am acutely aware of the fact that even the finest minds can be wrong...and have been wrong throughout the evolution of science...there is no reason whatsoever to suspect that the minds of the present are the finest and that future fine minds won't find our notions on physics as quaint as we find the thinking of the finest minds of the past. It is arrogant in the extreme to believe that we have learned it all and are mistaken about nothing.....especially when physical evidence is lacking to support most of the true facts we accept today...as has always been the case, improvements in instrumentation, and the ability to look more deeply that those improvements provide will inevitably show us that the finest minds of today were certainly creative, but alas, wrong in far more cases than they will have been right.

We are constrained by what we can imagine...and nature has shown us over and over that our imaginations are very dim bulbs indeed when contrasted with the realities of nature....

Unfortunately assumption has become an accepted means of logic in physics...it is rampant and becoming more rampant all the time.

What follows is the reason that is not true.
Suppose we make the assumption that a proton is made of three quarks...
Quarks were not assumed willy nilly.
Historically a plethora of around 100 "elementary" particles had interaction properties that fell into a pattern. That pattern was found to follow group theory. The patterns of group theory enabled prediction of other particles that were sought and found. The last particle recently found was the Higgs Boson. Quarks came out of patterns in group theory. They were not assumed. The Standard Model encapsulates all the basics of these particles.

Suppose we make the assumption that light is made up of particles...
Photons were not assumed, but came out of the math.
Initially Pauli found that radiation by discrete energy levels would make black body radiation follow experiment. That was shortly followed by Shrodingers equation which showed that solutions to the wave equation in bound states only allowed discrete energy levels. The release of light at those energy levels were called photons which are not much more than a name for electromagnetic discreteness.

Suppose we make the assumption that space time is curved...
That was not assumed. What was assumed by Einstein is that experiments in an accelerating system would be identical to an experiment in a stationary system in a gravitational field. In other words the force you feel by acceleration is the same entity as the force by gravitation. That lead to the extraordinary result of curved space-time.

Suppose we make the assumption that there was a big bang. We can then theorize about the observed expansion of the universe...
The expanding universe was observed first. There was a theory by Fred Hoyle that did not have a big bang origin. George Gamow promoted an origin of expansion. The big bang was a derogatory term for Gamow's idea, but it stuck. It was resolved around 1950.

Suppose we make the assumption that there is a big old black hole at the center of a galaxy. Now we can theorize about the observation of the shape of a galaxy ...
The shape of the galaxy was known to be spiral well before the assumption of a black hole.

Suppose we assume that the space time observations of different observers are connected by the Lorentz transformation of special relativity. Now we can theorize about the observation that the speed of light is the same for all observers...
Your observation of this is mostly correct. The Lorentz transformation originally came as an ad hoc addition to form consistency in Maxwell's equations -- the speed of light is invariant for local systems. Einstein with Lorentz expanded it by assuming all physics laws are invariant with respect to inertial reference frames.

Assumption. It has become part and parcel of physics and has led to a necessity of circular reasoning in which assumptions are accepted and lauded as true facts....

In all of the examples above, it is not possible to directly check to see if the assumption is valid which is the pseudoscientific beauty of post modern physics...
The only reason you came to this erroneous conclusion is that you got the sequence of assumption-result inverted.

In the troposphere, the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited greenhouse molecule can trans for its energy to another gas molecule ) most often N2 is about a nanosecond. The mean decay time for an excited molecule in the atmosphere to emit that energy is about a second.

So when a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs some IR radiation, about 99.9999999% of the time, it will lose that energy via collision also known as conduction...

You have that backwards.
The vast majority of molecular collisions will simply bounce off without changing the molecular vibration state because the velocities are way too slow. The probability that a collision will not quench the CO2 vibration is 0.999999815. Because of that, almost all CO2 molecules will keep their energy until they emit 15 micron radiation into the atmosphere.

We are constrained by what we can imagine...and nature has shown us over and over that our imaginations are very dim bulbs indeed when contrasted with the realities of nature....

That is only true for the most esoteric aspects of physics such as the relation of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the possibility of the black hole singularities, dark matter and dark energy. None of these areas impact the physics knowledge needed for earthly problems.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Talking to you is a useless exercise...you completely fail to understand even the basics...

Planck's law deals with theoretical black bodies...which are always assumed to be within perfect vacuums...If your understanding doesn't come from that basic fact, then everything after is nothing more than your nut job interpretation...and is meaningless...

Planck's law applies to any surround. Who says it doesn't?

Planck's law itself...Ever look at the equation? Actually look at it. Note the "C" it denotes the speed of light in a vacuum.

All theoretical perfect black bodies are surrounded by theoretically perfect vacuums...the formulae change when matter is present..this is basic stuff and you don't get it...as a result, everything that comes after your failure to grasp the basics is flawed...

If you want to disagree with all physicists over the past hundred years, so be it.
If you want to say they all fail to grasp the basics, then you don't grasp the basics.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Planck's law itself...Ever look at the equation? Actually look at it. Note the "C" it denotes the speed of light in a vacuum.

The value "c" is way more than just the speed of light. It is intimately connected to the fabric of space-time and occurs in many places unrelated to light. For example E=mc².

I wrote this note on the four dimensions of relativity some time ago. I will paste it here.

4-space​

Everyone is familiar with Pythagorean's theorem in plane geometry. The hypotenuse H is given by the two sides of a right triangle:
H² = x²+y²

In 3 dimensions, with x, y, and z being the perpendicular coordinate axes, the distance between the origin and some point in space is a 3 dimensional version of the theorem:
D² = x²+y²+z²

However suppose x and y coordinates are given in centimeters and the z coordinate is given in inches. A conversion factor that relates inches to centimeters is needed. Since there is 2.54 cm per inch, the conversion factor is 2.54 cm/inch:
D² = x² + y² + 2.54² * z²

In the four dimensions of space plus time, the t coordinate is given in seconds, so this equation is wrong and needs a conversion factor.
S² = x²+y²+z²+t² (wrong. you can't add units of distance to units of time)

Suppose the spatial dimensions are in meters. To turn time into meters, the units of the constant conversion factor must be meters / second, or a velocity. If it is to be consistent with relativity, the velocity turns out to be an imaginary number, ic.
S² = x²+y²+z² + (ict)² or
S² = x²+y²+z² – c² t²

The conversion factor, c, is the velocity of light and is intimately connected to the fabric of space-time. S is no longer just a distance, it is a measure of the separation of events since it includes space and time. More exactly if one event is at
x₀, y₀, z₀, and time t₀ and a second event is at
x₁, y₁, z₁, t₁ the separation S of these two events is,

S² = (x₀ - x₁)²+(y₀ - y₁)²+(z₀ - z₁)² - c²(t₀ - t₁)²

A few properties of S: Any two viewers moving in space will find that their perceived positions and times of these two events may differ but they will also find that their computation of S is the same for both. That is, S is invariant. Depending on the relative velocities, S can be positive, negative, or zero. But that's another story

.

 

[ReinyDays]

Thank you for making my head hurt ...

 

[jc456]

Talking to you is a useless exercise...you completely fail to understand even the basics...

Planck's law deals with theoretical black bodies...which are always assumed to be within perfect vacuums...If your understanding doesn't come from that basic fact, then everything after is nothing more than your nut job interpretation...and is meaningless...

Planck's law applies to any surround. Who says it doesn't?

Planck's law itself...Ever look at the equation? Actually look at it. Note the "C" it denotes the speed of light in a vacuum.

All theoretical perfect black bodies are surrounded by theoretically perfect vacuums...the formulae change when matter is present..this is basic stuff and you don't get it...as a result, everything that comes after your failure to grasp the basics is flawed...

If you want to disagree with all physicists over the past hundred years, so be it.
If you want to say they all fail to grasp the basics, then you don't grasp the basics.

.

2nd law

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Talking to you is a useless exercise...you completely fail to understand even the basics...

Planck's law deals with theoretical black bodies...which are always assumed to be within perfect vacuums...If your understanding doesn't come from that basic fact, then everything after is nothing more than your nut job interpretation...and is meaningless...

Planck's law applies to any surround. Who says it doesn't?

Planck's law itself...Ever look at the equation? Actually look at it. Note the "C" it denotes the speed of light in a vacuum.

All theoretical perfect black bodies are surrounded by theoretically perfect vacuums...the formulae change when matter is present..this is basic stuff and you don't get it...as a result, everything that comes after your failure to grasp the basics is flawed...

If you want to disagree with all physicists over the past hundred years, so be it.
If you want to say they all fail to grasp the basics, then you don't grasp the basics.

.

2nd law

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

Stefan-Boltzmann

Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

 

[jc456]

Talking to you is a useless exercise...you completely fail to understand even the basics...

Planck's law deals with theoretical black bodies...which are always assumed to be within perfect vacuums...If your understanding doesn't come from that basic fact, then everything after is nothing more than your nut job interpretation...and is meaningless...

Planck's law applies to any surround. Who says it doesn't?

Planck's law itself...Ever look at the equation? Actually look at it. Note the "C" it denotes the speed of light in a vacuum.

All theoretical perfect black bodies are surrounded by theoretically perfect vacuums...the formulae change when matter is present..this is basic stuff and you don't get it...as a result, everything that comes after your failure to grasp the basics is flawed...

If you want to disagree with all physicists over the past hundred years, so be it.
If you want to say they all fail to grasp the basics, then you don't grasp the basics.

.

2nd law

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

Stefan-Boltzmann

View attachment 284385



Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

Still can’t get past that 2nd law

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Planck's law applies to any surround. Who says it doesn't?

Planck's law itself...Ever look at the equation? Actually look at it. Note the "C" it denotes the speed of light in a vacuum.

All theoretical perfect black bodies are surrounded by theoretically perfect vacuums...the formulae change when matter is present..this is basic stuff and you don't get it...as a result, everything that comes after your failure to grasp the basics is flawed...

If you want to disagree with all physicists over the past hundred years, so be it.
If you want to say they all fail to grasp the basics, then you don't grasp the basics.

.

2nd law

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

Stefan-Boltzmann

View attachment 284385



Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

Still can’t get past that 2nd law

Or Stefan-Boltzmann.

 

[jc456]

Planck's law itself...Ever look at the equation? Actually look at it. Note the "C" it denotes the speed of light in a vacuum.

All theoretical perfect black bodies are surrounded by theoretically perfect vacuums...the formulae change when matter is present..this is basic stuff and you don't get it...as a result, everything that comes after your failure to grasp the basics is flawed...

If you want to disagree with all physicists over the past hundred years, so be it.
If you want to say they all fail to grasp the basics, then you don't grasp the basics.

.

2nd law

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

Stefan-Boltzmann

View attachment 284385



Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

Still can’t get past that 2nd law

Or Stefan-Boltzmann.

T-tc=0 2nd law confirmed. Still waiting for your observation

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you want to disagree with all physicists over the past hundred years, so be it.
If you want to say they all fail to grasp the basics, then you don't grasp the basics.

.

2nd law

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

Stefan-Boltzmann

View attachment 284385



Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

Still can’t get past that 2nd law

Or Stefan-Boltzmann.

T-tc=0 2nd law confirmed. Still waiting for your observation

T-tc = not zero, 2nd Law still confirmed.

 

[jc456]

2nd law

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

Stefan-Boltzmann

View attachment 284385



Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

Still can’t get past that 2nd law

Or Stefan-Boltzmann.

T-tc=0 2nd law confirmed. Still waiting for your observation

T-tc = not zero, 2nd Law still confirmed.

T=tc= 0 in my math class

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stefan-Boltzmann

View attachment 284385



Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

Still can’t get past that 2nd law

Or Stefan-Boltzmann.

T-tc=0 2nd law confirmed. Still waiting for your observation

T-tc = not zero, 2nd Law still confirmed.

T=tc= 0 in my math class

If T≠ tc, T-tc ≠ 0, 2nd Law still confirmed.

 

[jc456]

Still can’t get past that 2nd law

Or Stefan-Boltzmann.

T-tc=0 2nd law confirmed. Still waiting for your observation

T-tc = not zero, 2nd Law still confirmed.

T=tc= 0 in my math class

If T≠ tc, T-tc ≠ 0, 2nd Law still confirmed.

But t=tc=0. No negative 2nd law

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or Stefan-Boltzmann.

T-tc=0 2nd law confirmed. Still waiting for your observation

T-tc = not zero, 2nd Law still confirmed.

T=tc= 0 in my math class

If T≠ tc, T-tc ≠ 0, 2nd Law still confirmed.

But t=tc=0. No negative 2nd law

Whether they're equal or not equal, there is no violation of the 2nd law.

 

[jc456]

T-tc=0 2nd law confirmed. Still waiting for your observation

T-tc = not zero, 2nd Law still confirmed.

T=tc= 0 in my math class

If T≠ tc, T-tc ≠ 0, 2nd Law still confirmed.

But t=tc=0. No negative 2nd law

Whether they're equal or not equal, there is no violation of the 2nd law.

And cool doesn’t flow to warm