Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[jc456]

They are under the impression that entropy somehow means energy flow is a two way street...

Only because it is.

Still no back up for your theory? Weird.

still no observed cool to heat flow.

Photons.....durr

what's the difference? Light is energy. or don't you know that either?

what's the difference?

The difference is that photons aren't restricted.

then all you need to do is show an observation of them flowing from a cooler object to a hotter one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Binary stars.

hahahahahaha, on my phone last night, the two stars weren't showing. hahahahaahaha.

So now that I see the two stars there on my PC, I see the brighter one pushing light to the dimmer one. That's it. You see the dimmer one due to the light off the brighter one hitting it.

The both radiate, with no restriction.
Weird.

prove it? I explained why you saw the dimmer star, it is reflected light from the brighter one. That's all. So prove it isn't reflective light? you can't. Nor can I since we can't touch them. So your choice of observation can't be used.

prove it?

You need proof that stars radiate in all directions? LOL!

Maybe you should contact SSDD's professor source?

I explained why you saw the dimmer star, it is reflected light from the brighter one.

Their emission spectrum is different.

You need proof that stars radiate in all directions

Not at all, I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones. and your post doesn't show that for the reason I gave.

Their emission spectrum is different.
correct, one is hotter, and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light.

I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones.

If you have any proof, any at all, that a cool star can't radiate at a hotter star, post it.

Their emission spectrum is different.

correct, one is hotter, and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light

Reflected light would have the same spectrum as the original source.

You may know less about this topic than usual.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only because it is.

Still no back up for your theory? Weird.

still no observed cool to heat flow.

Photons.....durr

what's the difference? Light is energy. or don't you know that either?

what's the difference?

The difference is that photons aren't restricted.

then all you need to do is show an observation of them flowing from a cooler object to a hotter one.

 

[jc456]

hahahahahaha, on my phone last night, the two stars weren't showing. hahahahaahaha.

So now that I see the two stars there on my PC, I see the brighter one pushing light to the dimmer one. That's it. You see the dimmer one due to the light off the brighter one hitting it.

The both radiate, with no restriction.
Weird.

prove it? I explained why you saw the dimmer star, it is reflected light from the brighter one. That's all. So prove it isn't reflective light? you can't. Nor can I since we can't touch them. So your choice of observation can't be used.

prove it?

You need proof that stars radiate in all directions? LOL!

Maybe you should contact SSDD's professor source?

I explained why you saw the dimmer star, it is reflected light from the brighter one.

Their emission spectrum is different.

You need proof that stars radiate in all directions

Not at all, I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones. and your post doesn't show that for the reason I gave.

Their emission spectrum is different.
correct, one is hotter, and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light.

I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones.

If you have any proof, any at all, that a cool star can't radiate at a hotter star, post it.

Their emission spectrum is different.

correct, one is hotter, and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light

Reflected light would have the same spectrum as the original source.

You may know less about this topic than usual.

If you have any proof, any at all, that a cool star can't radiate at a hotter star, post it.

2nd law. whaaaa Hooo, we've gone full circle yet again, and still nothing of observation from old Todd.

BTW, the lips should be a different color than the rest of her face then. hahaahahahaa

 

[jc456]

still no observed cool to heat flow.

Photons.....durr

what's the difference? Light is energy. or don't you know that either?

what's the difference?

The difference is that photons aren't restricted.

then all you need to do is show an observation of them flowing from a cooler object to a hotter one.

already explained, no need to repeat your circle again. the camera is loosing energy to the colder ice pop and that's all. I even gave you the info from the company and yet here you are back at ground zero. too funny todd. derp

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The both radiate, with no restriction.
Weird.

prove it? I explained why you saw the dimmer star, it is reflected light from the brighter one. That's all. So prove it isn't reflective light? you can't. Nor can I since we can't touch them. So your choice of observation can't be used.

prove it?

You need proof that stars radiate in all directions? LOL!

Maybe you should contact SSDD's professor source?

I explained why you saw the dimmer star, it is reflected light from the brighter one.

Their emission spectrum is different.

You need proof that stars radiate in all directions

Not at all, I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones. and your post doesn't show that for the reason I gave.

Their emission spectrum is different.
correct, one is hotter, and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light.

I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones.

If you have any proof, any at all, that a cool star can't radiate at a hotter star, post it.

Their emission spectrum is different.

correct, one is hotter, and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light

Reflected light would have the same spectrum as the original source.

You may know less about this topic than usual.

If you have any proof, any at all, that a cool star can't radiate at a hotter star, post it.

2nd law. whaaaa Hooo, we've gone full circle yet again, and still nothing of observation from old Todd.

2nd law.

If you have any source that says, explicitly, "this star can't radiate at its hotter companion, because 2nd Law"

Post it.

If you have any sources that say, explicitly, "this object can't radiate at a hotter object, because 2nd Law"

Post it.

Weird that SSDD has been saying this for years......still zero backup.
Well, he posts backup, it just ends up disproving his claim.

Maybe you'll have better luck? DURR​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Photons.....durr

what's the difference? Light is energy. or don't you know that either?

what's the difference?

The difference is that photons aren't restricted.

then all you need to do is show an observation of them flowing from a cooler object to a hotter one.

already explained, no need to repeat your circle again. the camera is loosing energy to the colder ice pop and that's all. I even gave you the info from the company and yet here you are back at ground zero. too funny todd. derp

the camera is loosing energy to the colder ice pop

It is losing energy. Now prove that photons aren't moving from the ice cream to the camera.

I even gave you the info from the company

Feel free to post the email of the company contact.
I'll be happy to get his help in correcting your misunderstanding.

 

[jc456]

what's the difference? Light is energy. or don't you know that either?

what's the difference?

The difference is that photons aren't restricted.

then all you need to do is show an observation of them flowing from a cooler object to a hotter one.

already explained, no need to repeat your circle again. the camera is loosing energy to the colder ice pop and that's all. I even gave you the info from the company and yet here you are back at ground zero. too funny todd. derp

the camera is loosing energy to the colder ice pop

It is losing energy. Now prove that photons aren't moving from the ice cream to the camera.

I even gave you the info from the company

Feel free to post the email of the company contact.
I'll be happy to get his help in correcting your misunderstanding.

It is losing energy.
yes
Now prove that photons aren't moving from the ice cream to the camera.
I did.

 

[ReinyDays]

We allow the cooler star to radiate into space ... there's nothing about this process that takes into consideration what's on the other side of the space ... this is the space in between molecules ... take our measurements between the stars and you'll read both emissions ... this is how weather satellites are able to take IR photos at local noon ... so there's your proof that the Earth radiates towards the sun, we have pictures ...

Also if you'll note ... some of those IR sources come from the lower portions of the atmosphere ... low level stratus is fairly common and easily picked up by the IR cameras in space ... thus demonstrating IR travels through the atmosphere ...

 

[jc456]

prove it? I explained why you saw the dimmer star, it is reflected light from the brighter one. That's all. So prove it isn't reflective light? you can't. Nor can I since we can't touch them. So your choice of observation can't be used.

prove it?

You need proof that stars radiate in all directions? LOL!

Maybe you should contact SSDD's professor source?

I explained why you saw the dimmer star, it is reflected light from the brighter one.

Their emission spectrum is different.

You need proof that stars radiate in all directions

Not at all, I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones. and your post doesn't show that for the reason I gave.

Their emission spectrum is different.
correct, one is hotter, and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light.

I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones.

If you have any proof, any at all, that a cool star can't radiate at a hotter star, post it.

Their emission spectrum is different.

correct, one is hotter, and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light

Reflected light would have the same spectrum as the original source.

You may know less about this topic than usual.

If you have any proof, any at all, that a cool star can't radiate at a hotter star, post it.

2nd law. whaaaa Hooo, we've gone full circle yet again, and still nothing of observation from old Todd.

2nd law.

If you have any source that says, explicitly, "this star can't radiate at its hotter companion, because 2nd Law"

Post it.

If you have any sources that say, explicitly, "this object can't radiate at a hotter object, because 2nd Law"

Post it.

Weird that SSDD has been saying this for years......still zero backup.
Well, he posts backup, it just ends up disproving his claim.

Maybe you'll have better luck? DURR​

I did, here again. How many times do you need to read it? Just curious, I'll have to bookmark the page at some point if I have to keep going back to it every week.

Clausius Statement - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease. For example, we cannot construct a refrigerator that operates without any work input.

 

[jc456]

We allow the cooler star to radiate into space ... there's nothing about this process that takes into consideration what's on the other side of the space ... this is the space in between molecules ... take our measurements between the stars and you'll read both emissions ... this is how weather satellites are able to take IR photos at local noon ... so there's your proof that the Earth radiates towards the sun, we have pictures ...

Also if you'll note ... some of those IR sources come from the lower portions of the atmosphere ... low level stratus is fairly common and easily picked up by the IR cameras in space ... thus demonstrating IR travels through the atmosphere ...

here, in the event you missed my last post.

Clausius Statement - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease. For example, we cannot construct a refrigerator that operates without any work input.

 

[jc456]

BTW light is heat and photons are light. So the 2nd law takes it all under consideration.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what's the difference?

The difference is that photons aren't restricted.

then all you need to do is show an observation of them flowing from a cooler object to a hotter one.

already explained, no need to repeat your circle again. the camera is loosing energy to the colder ice pop and that's all. I even gave you the info from the company and yet here you are back at ground zero. too funny todd. derp

the camera is loosing energy to the colder ice pop

It is losing energy. Now prove that photons aren't moving from the ice cream to the camera.

I even gave you the info from the company

Feel free to post the email of the company contact.
I'll be happy to get his help in correcting your misunderstanding.

It is losing energy.
yes
Now prove that photons aren't moving from the ice cream to the camera.
I did.

Post your proof that photons aren't moving both ways. You must have hundreds...….

Post a few that say, "photons can't move this way because...the target is warmer"

 

[jc456]

then all you need to do is show an observation of them flowing from a cooler object to a hotter one.

already explained, no need to repeat your circle again. the camera is loosing energy to the colder ice pop and that's all. I even gave you the info from the company and yet here you are back at ground zero. too funny todd. derp

the camera is loosing energy to the colder ice pop

It is losing energy. Now prove that photons aren't moving from the ice cream to the camera.

I even gave you the info from the company

Feel free to post the email of the company contact.
I'll be happy to get his help in correcting your misunderstanding.

It is losing energy.
yes
Now prove that photons aren't moving from the ice cream to the camera.
I did.

Post your proof that photons aren't moving both ways. You must have hundreds...….

Post a few that say, "photons can't move this way because...the target is warmer"

I'm not doing your work for you. you prove cooler objects violate the 2nd law and Clausius Statement.

even SB when T=Tc and power is zero.

 

[EvMetro]

It is interesting to see a debate about heat when established science is so clear. It's like seeing a debate about which way water flows...

 

[ReinyDays]

We're moving energy from a cool reservoir to empty space ... do you see that step ... 300K object radiates into 3K space ... think of a dirt molecule, above it at some distance is a nitrogen molecule, in between the two is empty space ... or are you suggesting all these molecules are in physical contact? ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

prove it?

You need proof that stars radiate in all directions? LOL!

Maybe you should contact SSDD's professor source?

I explained why you saw the dimmer star, it is reflected light from the brighter one.

Their emission spectrum is different.

You need proof that stars radiate in all directions

Not at all, I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones. and your post doesn't show that for the reason I gave.

Their emission spectrum is different.
correct, one is hotter, and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light.

I need proof that cooler stars radiate at hotter ones.

If you have any proof, any at all, that a cool star can't radiate at a hotter star, post it.

Their emission spectrum is different.

correct, one is hotter, and the one hotter is radiating at the cooler one and the photons we see are the reflected light

Reflected light would have the same spectrum as the original source.

You may know less about this topic than usual.

If you have any proof, any at all, that a cool star can't radiate at a hotter star, post it.

2nd law. whaaaa Hooo, we've gone full circle yet again, and still nothing of observation from old Todd.

2nd law.

If you have any source that says, explicitly, "this star can't radiate at its hotter companion, because 2nd Law"

Post it.

If you have any sources that say, explicitly, "this object can't radiate at a hotter object, because 2nd Law"

Post it.

Weird that SSDD has been saying this for years......still zero backup.
Well, he posts backup, it just ends up disproving his claim.

Maybe you'll have better luck? DURR​

I did, here again. How many times do you need to read it? Just curious, I'll have to bookmark the page at some point if I have to keep going back to it every week.

Clausius Statement - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease. For example, we cannot construct a refrigerator that operates without any work input.

I did, here again. How many times do you need to read it?

Thanks for the link. Now do you have one that actually helps your claim?

Your source didn't mention photons, waves or radiate.
I'll be happy to PM you Dr Raeder's contact info.
He'd probably be enjoy mocking your confusion.

 

[ReinyDays]

It is interesting to see a debate about heat when established science is so clear. It's like seeing a debate about which way water flows...

[giggle] ... wait until we start pointing the gravity vector straight up ... that's always good fun ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BTW light is heat and photons are light. So the 2nd law takes it all under consideration.

BTW light is heat

Prove it.

 

[jc456]

We're moving energy from a cool reservoir to empty space ... do you see that step ... 300K object radiates into 3K space ... think of a dirt molecule, above it at some distance is a nitrogen molecule, in between the two is empty space ... or are you suggesting all these molecules are in physical contact? ...

empty space is cooler. how so? no violations there. not at all.