Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[jc456]

QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 23350314, member: 29707"]

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

BTW light is heat

Prove it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm not trying to prove your claim...….you're not doing YOUR work.

even SB when T=Tc and power is zero.

If you have proof that no photons move when T=Tc, you should post it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

It is interesting to see a debate about heat

I'm not debating heat, I'm debating photons.

 

[jc456]

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.

I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm not trying to prove your claim...….you're not doing YOUR work.

even SB when T=Tc and power is zero.

If you have proof that no photons move when T=Tc, you should post it.

I'm not trying to prove your claim.

I'm not asking, you can't prove your own.

T=Tc = zero, no output.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 23350335, member: 29707"]

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...

It is interesting to see a debate about heat

I'm not debating heat, I'm debating photons.[/QUOTE]

photons are light and light is heat, so yes you are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm not trying to prove your claim...….you're not doing YOUR work.

even SB when T=Tc and power is zero.

If you have proof that no photons move when T=Tc, you should post it.

I'm not trying to prove your claim.

I'm not asking, you can't prove your own.

T=Tc = zero, no output.

T=Tc = zero, no output.

If you have a source that says no output (photons) when T=Tc......post it.

 

[jc456]

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.

I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm not trying to prove your claim...….you're not doing YOUR work.

even SB when T=Tc and power is zero.

If you have proof that no photons move when T=Tc, you should post it.

I'm not trying to prove your claim.

I'm not asking, you can't prove your own.

T=Tc = zero, no output.

T=Tc = zero, no output.

If you have a source that says no output (photons) when T=Tc......post it.

photons are an output and if zero output is the answer, then zero photons follow.

Physics for Kids: Photons and Light

What is a photon?

In physics, a photon is a bundle of electromagnetic energy. It is the basic unit that makes up all light. The photon is sometimes referred to as a "quantum" of electromagnetic energy.

Let me know when zero isn't zero.

 

[ReinyDays]

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.

You should definitely focus on doing your own work ... Clausius Theorem states: ∫ dQ/T = 0 (where ∫ is a circle integral, Q = heat transferred and T = temperature) ... maybe start by refreshing my memory of what a circle integral is ...

There's no Tc variable in SB ... try again ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm not trying to prove your claim...….you're not doing YOUR work.

even SB when T=Tc and power is zero.

If you have proof that no photons move when T=Tc, you should post it.

I'm not trying to prove your claim.

I'm not asking, you can't prove your own.

T=Tc = zero, no output.

T=Tc = zero, no output.

If you have a source that says no output (photons) when T=Tc......post it.

photons are an output and if zero output is the answer, then zero photons follow.

Physics for Kids: Photons and Light

What is a photon?

In physics, a photon is a bundle of electromagnetic energy. It is the basic unit that makes up all light. The photon is sometimes referred to as a "quantum" of electromagnetic energy.

Thanks. Now if you have one that helps your claim, it would be even better.

 

[jc456]

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.

You should definitely focus on doing your own work ... Clausius Theorem states: ∫ dQ/T = 0 (where ∫ is a circle integral, Q = heat transferred and T = temperature) ... maybe start by refreshing my memory of what a circle integral is ...

There's no Tc variable in SB ... try again ...

hmmmmm

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

and from that is T=Tc = zero. P=zero!!!!

 

[jc456]

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.

I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm not trying to prove your claim...….you're not doing YOUR work.

even SB when T=Tc and power is zero.

If you have proof that no photons move when T=Tc, you should post it.

I'm not trying to prove your claim.

I'm not asking, you can't prove your own.

T=Tc = zero, no output.

T=Tc = zero, no output.

If you have a source that says no output (photons) when T=Tc......post it.

photons are an output and if zero output is the answer, then zero photons follow.

Physics for Kids: Photons and Light

What is a photon?

In physics, a photon is a bundle of electromagnetic energy. It is the basic unit that makes up all light. The photon is sometimes referred to as a "quantum" of electromagnetic energy.

Thanks. Now if you have one that helps your claim, it would be even better.

post up that light energy moving from cold to warm. we're still waiting todd.

 

[ReinyDays]

hmmmmm

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

and from that is T=Tc = zero. P=zero!!!!

That's not Stefan-Boltzmann greybody Law ... P=eoAT^4 ... you can't just throw the Tc factor in without explaining why ... the emission of an object doesn't take into consideration the eventual fate of the energy ... you seem to be confused about cause-and-effect ... one follows the other ...

 

[jc456]

hmmmmm

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

and from that is T=Tc = zero. P=zero!!!!

That's not Stefan-Boltzmann greybody Law ... P=eoAT^4 ... you can't just throw the Tc factor in without explaining why ... the emission of an object doesn't take into consideration the eventual fate of the energy ... you seem to be confused about cause-and-effect ... one follows the other ...

I didn't say it was. I said SB law. I posted the calculation and the answer will always be zero if T=Tc. no matter how you wish to make it. 2nd law, cool objects don't flow to hot objects. until you get by all of this, your physics is junk.

 

[ReinyDays]

What's the difference between SB Law and SB Law? ...

 

[jc456]

What's the difference between SB Law and SB law? ...

well?

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

 

[SSDD]

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

Because that is the form of the SB law used for a radiator that is less than an ideal black body but is still radiating into a vacuum...you don't seem to grasp that different forms of the equation exist for different circumstances...if you don't see a Tc term, then the equation implies that the black body is radiating into a vacuum. If you don't see an e term, then the equation implies that you are talking about a theoretical ideal black body..

Generally there is no explanation of what the equation is saying, or implying because it is assumed that you know..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm asking you ... I say nothing is different ... P=eoAT^4 ... there's no Tc term ...

Because that is the form of the SB law used for a radiator that is less than an ideal black body but is still radiating into a vacuum...you don't seem to grasp that different forms of the equation exist for different circumstances...if you don't see a Tc term, then the equation implies that the black body is radiating into a vacuum. If you don't see an e term, then the equation implies that you are talking about a theoretical ideal black body..

Generally there is no explanation of what the equation is saying, or implying because it is assumed that you know..

Of course......dimmer switch!

 

[ReinyDays]

Because that is the form of the SB law used for a radiator that is less than an ideal black body but is still radiating into a vacuum...you don't seem to grasp that different forms of the equation exist for different circumstances...if you don't see a Tc term, then the equation implies that the black body is radiating into a vacuum. If you don't see an e term, then the equation implies that you are talking about a theoretical ideal black body..

Generally there is no explanation of what the equation is saying, or implying because it is assumed that you know..

Of course we're radiating into space (technically not a vacuum) ... where did you think we were radiating to? ... chocolate pudding, the persistent rash on my ankle, some magically charged æther? ... are you trying to put two black bodies together, without any space in between? ... that's about as far removed from what Stefan-Blotzmann is addressing as we can get ...

I'm sorry the Alarmists have convinced you that we can treat the atmosphere as a black body, we can't, we treat it as a fluid ... whatever's going on, we can assign a value of emissivity and use this in our equation without bothering with all the details of NS ... emissivity is a synonym of the greenhouse effect ... have you even bothered to solve the equation for this value of emissivity? ... didn't think so ...

What you don't seem to grasp is all forms of SB are algebraically identical ... if you'll remember from high school algebra, if we include a Tc term on one side of the equals sign, we have to include it on the other side ... P in this context is irradiance, somehow subtracting Tc from this makes it something other than irradiance ... therefore yours is something other than SB ... get it, the Earth radiates into space, no where else ...

I checked yesterday ... weather satellites are still showing IR radiation at local noon ... apparently the Earth does radiate towards the Sun ... care to explain how this is possible if it violates your version of the 2nd Law? ... maybe the dimmer switch is broken again ...

 

[Wuwei]

.if you don't see a Tc term, then the equation implies that the black body is radiating into a vacuum. If you don't see an e term, then the equation implies that you are talking about a theoretical ideal black body..

Suppose the object is colder than the surround. The resulting negative value of power P then refers to how much the object absorbs.

Generally there is no explanation of what the equation is saying, or implying because it is assumed that you know..

It is assumed that scientists know. Apparently you don't know what the equation is saying even though we gave you the meaning countless times.

.