Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[SSDD]

The final expression of that equation is what I have been saying all along...there is no expression there for calculating net...

That is not true at all. The SB equation you have been saying all along always had the expression,
.... (T⁴ – Tc⁴) where you specified the second term was always colder.

The textbook equation we are now referring to has the form
.... (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴) where T₁ and T₂ can be any temperatures.

.

The second term is always colder...it is a fundamental assumption of the SB law...been over this over and over with you...that fact invalidates any equation in which the second term may be warmer...the tedium...it hurts...

 

[SSDD]

The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment

Here is an article by one of SSDDs heroes. Wuwei, here is a good opportunity to pick out the flaws. Post up a handful and we'll see if our thoughts coincide.

An interesting quote- Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object. It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat. This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

I have no scientist heroes...and rarely agree wholeheartedly with any scientist.....you tend to make up arguments also to rail against....very tedious...

 

[Crick]

I think the point, Shit, was that Eschenbach and the other people discussing this make no suggestion that photons have any difficulty traveling from cold to warm and discuss net heat transfer as easily as if they believed it to be a real physical phenomenon.

 

[Wuwei]

The second term is always colder...it is a fundamental assumption of the SB law...been over this over and over with you...that fact invalidates any equation in which the second term may be warmer...the tedium...it hurts...

You know what the science is. We showed you the derivation of the SB law dozens of times. The bottom line is that you are totally wrong and you know it.

If it is so tedious for you why do you keep bringing it up? Why do you keep wallowing in science ineptitude? Do you long for the attention of others that know more than you to the extent that you are willing to demean yourself? That is why people here keep referring to you as a troll.

.

 

[IanC]

The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment

Here is an article by one of SSDDs heroes. Wuwei, here is a good opportunity to pick out the flaws. Post up a handful and we'll see if our thoughts coincide.

An interesting quote- Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object. It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat. This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

I stopped reading past the second paragraph after I saw things like this:

steel greenhouse advocates literally believe that 5 = 1 conserves energy​

The author goes on about this in that paragraph. I am missing some context because I assume that is a metaphor of some sort, but it came out of the blue and I don't know what it refers to.

Sorry, I didn't mean to distract you from dunning SSDD.

Carry on then.

 

[Crick]

I went looking for this thinking it was a denier meme but the only other reference I found was a Willis Eschenbach fantasy. Did he originate it?

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry, I didn't mean to distract you from dunning SSDD.

Carry on then.

Really, I need a distraction. But can you tell me what the "5 = 1" paragraph means.

The rest of the post looks like it was written better, but I only skimmed it.

 

[jc456]

Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...

Of course I "noted" the final term. That's why I showed the derivation. What do you mean it says nothing about net? Look at the first term of equation 3. That defines net as the out-flow minus the in-flow of radiation. That is a normal usage of the word "net", as used in business finance, etc. The text also shows the meaning when T1 < T2.

.

Simply saying net in front of an equation doesn't make it actually mean net...the ease with which you are fooled never ceases to give me a chuckle....

Still no back up for your "one-way flow only" claims.

Weird.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence. too fking funny. still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence.

DURR.

still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

Why would it?
You're still really bad at the math, aren't you?

Try again?

View attachment 249745

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit. I understand you don't know the difference between observed and hypothesis, but none of that is proven. so technically you didn't prove anything. just saying bub.

I'm waiting for the observed two way flow. please please please post it up!! I'm growing tired of waiting.

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course I "noted" the final term. That's why I showed the derivation. What do you mean it says nothing about net? Look at the first term of equation 3. That defines net as the out-flow minus the in-flow of radiation. That is a normal usage of the word "net", as used in business finance, etc. The text also shows the meaning when T1 < T2.

.

Simply saying net in front of an equation doesn't make it actually mean net...the ease with which you are fooled never ceases to give me a chuckle....

Still no back up for your "one-way flow only" claims.

Weird.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence. too fking funny. still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence.

DURR.

still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

Why would it?
You're still really bad at the math, aren't you?

Try again?

View attachment 249745

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit. I understand you don't know the difference between observed and hypothesis, but none of that is proven. so technically you didn't prove anything. just saying bub.

I'm waiting for the observed two way flow. please please please post it up!! I'm growing tired of waiting.

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit.

The Handbook of Modern Sensors printed "made up shit"?

By all means, post some of the hundreds of sources that agree with SSDD's moronic one-way only "theory".

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

Well, you're an idiot, so of course you are.

 

[Wuwei]

The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment

Here is an article by one of SSDDs heroes. Wuwei, here is a good opportunity to pick out the flaws. Post up a handful and we'll see if our thoughts coincide.

An interesting quote- Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object. It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat. This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

I read the article and have a few comments. The writing is agonizingly verbose and awkward.

Equation 3b) is wrong. The background temperature for the sphere's radiation should not be To. It should be Tsh. Because the shell is the surround to the sphere, not the exterior background To.

Equations 4b) to 5b) cascades that error.

Equations 3 and 4 are identical. What's the point of all that verbiage. Very awkward.

Ironically his equation 3b') is a tautology and says nothing about the sphere or shell equilibrium temperature.

In this sentence the author doesn't understand that the shell is a sort of intermediary and floats to an equilibrium somewhere between Tsh and To.

To raise the sphere’s temperature from emission from the shell would require positive heat flow from the shell to the sphere, but this is never possible because at most the shell emits the same power as the sphere.​

He doesn't understand that the shell isn't raising any temperature, but is shielding heat output from the sphere. The shell will come to a higher temperature equilibrium.

To raise an object’s temperature requires either work performed on it or heat transferred into it.​

That is the same problem the sock puppet skeptics have.

Edit: He assumes an input power to the sphere, Psp. That is a constant and an important part of the system, but it disappears in the rest of his development.

What did you think of the article?

.

 

[jc456]

Simply saying net in front of an equation doesn't make it actually mean net...the ease with which you are fooled never ceases to give me a chuckle....

Still no back up for your "one-way flow only" claims.

Weird.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence. too fking funny. still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence.

DURR.

still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

Why would it?
You're still really bad at the math, aren't you?

Try again?

View attachment 249745

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit. I understand you don't know the difference between observed and hypothesis, but none of that is proven. so technically you didn't prove anything. just saying bub.

I'm waiting for the observed two way flow. please please please post it up!! I'm growing tired of waiting.

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit.

The Handbook of Modern Sensors printed "made up shit"?

By all means, post some of the hundreds of sources that agree with SSDD's moronic one-way only "theory".

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

Well, you're an idiot, so of course you are.

You got observed? Otherwise made up shit .

No, post the one that proves yours!

You’re still a fail!

 

[SSDD]

I think the point, Shit, was that Eschenbach and the other people discussing this make no suggestion that photons have any difficulty traveling from cold to warm and discuss net heat transfer as easily as if they believed it to be a real physical phenomenon.

And they don't produce any actual evidence that they do either....imagine that...and they didn't manage to get the second law rewritten either did they...it still states that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object...

 

[SSDD]

You know what the science is. We showed you the derivation of the SB law dozens of times. The bottom line is that you are totally wrong and you know it.

Sorry guy..it is you who is wrong but you cleary aren't bright enough to know it...such is the extent to which you have been duped..

 

[SSDD]

The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment

Here is an article by one of SSDDs heroes. Wuwei, here is a good opportunity to pick out the flaws. Post up a handful and we'll see if our thoughts coincide.

An interesting quote- Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object. It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat. This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

I stopped reading past the second paragraph after I saw things like this:

steel greenhouse advocates literally believe that 5 = 1 conserves energy​

The author goes on about this in that paragraph. I am missing some context because I assume that is a metaphor of some sort, but it came out of the blue and I don't know what it refers to.

Sorry, I didn't mean to distract you from dunning SSDD.

Carry on then.

Laughable...absolutely laughable...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still no back up for your "one-way flow only" claims.

Weird.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence. too fking funny. still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence.

DURR.

still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

Why would it?
You're still really bad at the math, aren't you?

Try again?

View attachment 249745

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit. I understand you don't know the difference between observed and hypothesis, but none of that is proven. so technically you didn't prove anything. just saying bub.

I'm waiting for the observed two way flow. please please please post it up!! I'm growing tired of waiting.

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit.

The Handbook of Modern Sensors printed "made up shit"?

By all means, post some of the hundreds of sources that agree with SSDD's moronic one-way only "theory".

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

Well, you're an idiot, so of course you are.

You got observed? Otherwise made up shit .

No, post the one that proves yours!

You’re still a fail!

You got observed?

Besides all the ones I previously posted that you ignored?

No, post the one that proves yours!

The Handbook of Modern Sensors isn't good enough?
Do you have any that refute this source of SSDD's?

 

[Crick]

I think the point, Shit, was that Eschenbach and the other people discussing this make no suggestion that photons have any difficulty traveling from cold to warm and discuss net heat transfer as easily as if they believed it to be a real physical phenomenon.

And they don't produce any actual evidence that they do either....imagine that...and they didn't manage to get the second law rewritten either did they...it still states that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object...

The instant they use the term "net", they ARE saying that it moves in both directions.

And you have yet to even attempt to address the violations of conservation of energy and special relativity. How does matter avoid radiating towards a hotter object moving with respect to the source? Do you believe matter somehow does the calculation and leads the target?

and that last is a yes or no question that I am quite certain you will not answer.

 

[Wuwei]

You know what the science is. We showed you the derivation of the SB law dozens of times. The bottom line is that you are totally wrong and you know it.

Sorry guy..it is you who is wrong but you cleary aren't bright enough to know it...such is the extent to which you have been duped..

You never learn do you. All scientists know what the SB equation is, and it isn't what you think it is, yet you are calling all physicists clearly not bright enough to know they are wrong. And all the scientists are duped to boot. You are trying to make it personal, but it's not working.

On the other hand if I would call you a troll, or a sad hapless fellow, that would be personal because only you and your sock puppets are so ignorant of science that you reinvent and BS your way through it until you miserably fail.

Contradiction is arguable, but self-contradiction is abject failure.

.

 

[jc456]

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence. too fking funny. still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence.

DURR.

still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

Why would it?
You're still really bad at the math, aren't you?

Try again?

View attachment 249745

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit. I understand you don't know the difference between observed and hypothesis, but none of that is proven. so technically you didn't prove anything. just saying bub.

I'm waiting for the observed two way flow. please please please post it up!! I'm growing tired of waiting.

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit.

The Handbook of Modern Sensors printed "made up shit"?

By all means, post some of the hundreds of sources that agree with SSDD's moronic one-way only "theory".

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

Well, you're an idiot, so of course you are.

You got observed? Otherwise made up shit .

No, post the one that proves yours!

You’re still a fail!

You got observed?

Besides all the ones I previously posted that you ignored?

No, post the one that proves yours!

The Handbook of Modern Sensors isn't good enough?
Do you have any that refute this source of SSDD's?

None observed no! Remains no

 

[Crick]

I think you missed the point. SSDD's own reference source refutes his claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence.

DURR.

still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.

Why would it?
You're still really bad at the math, aren't you?

Try again?

View attachment 249745

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit. I understand you don't know the difference between observed and hypothesis, but none of that is proven. so technically you didn't prove anything. just saying bub.

I'm waiting for the observed two way flow. please please please post it up!! I'm growing tired of waiting.

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

where's the experiment? that's all made up shit.

The Handbook of Modern Sensors printed "made up shit"?

By all means, post some of the hundreds of sources that agree with SSDD's moronic one-way only "theory".

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.

Well, you're an idiot, so of course you are.

You got observed? Otherwise made up shit .

No, post the one that proves yours!

You’re still a fail!

You got observed?

Besides all the ones I previously posted that you ignored?

No, post the one that proves yours!

The Handbook of Modern Sensors isn't good enough?
Do you have any that refute this source of SSDD's?

None observed no! Remains no

None observed no!

The authors of The Handbook of Modern Sensors show two way flow and mention "net thermal flux",
but they're wrong and SSDD, with no backup, is right? LOL!