Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Haven’t seen any. Where’s that blue breath from the girl? Hahahaha loser no observation no evidence!! Check mateYeah, neat picture. So what?You’re blind
Looks to me like waves are going in both directions.
You don't see arrows going both ways between the target and the sensor? DERP!
Does evidence cause you pain?
...once again...do you have a single...that is ONE...just one SINGLE piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere...Just one? We both know that you don't..
We have all seen this mantra that you chant repeatedly. I suppose it is how you self sooth yourself when you can't answer questions directed at you.
I have answered your question hundreds of times, in dozens of ways. You refuse to acknowledge or discuss those answers, and simply go back to chanting.
So I will keep my answer short and sweet.
The first law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
More radiation energy goes into the bottom of the atmosphere than comes out at the top. Where did the energy go?
Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.
Suppose a cold gas is next to a warm solid surface. The molecules of the cold gas must hit the warm surface. This is an example of energy moving from a colder substance to a warmer substance.
Of course more thermal energy goes from the surface toward the gas than the gas to the surface, thus preserving the well understood form of the SloT.
If for some idiotic reason the molecules of the cold gas are forbidden from moving toward the warm surface, how will the surface lose thermal energy to the gas?
Post observedpost oneHe isn't alone. jc456 idolizes him and even parrots his words. I'm sure SSDD respects jc a lot too.
JC is clueless. Sometimes JC says something that completely disagrees with SSDD's idiocy
and needs to have his face rubbed in the contradiction before he notices and reverts to agreeing.
cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
Sensor observed it.
Sensor saw negative flux flow towards the cold object . FailPost observedpost one
cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
Sensor observed it.
Looks to me like waves are going in both directions.
It’s a picture. How is that observed? ExplainYou’re blindSensor saw negative flux flow towards the cold object . Fail
Looks to me like waves are going in both directions.
You don't see arrows going both ways between the target and the sensor? DERP!
Yes, the sensor observes the net thermal flux.
They wrote an entire book about the sensors that observe.
Is English your second language?
“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell. It is the mathematical difference between influx and efflux. Net flux = Influx − Efflux. Similar to influx and efflux, net flux is reported as a rate.Jan 3, 2014”It’s a picture. How is that observed? Explain
Yes, the sensor observes the net thermal flux.
They wrote an entire book about the sensors that observe.
Is English your second language?
I gave my explanation as this relates to.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux
You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.
“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.
In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux.
I agree.
Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.
Post observedpost oneJC is clueless. Sometimes JC says something that completely disagrees with SSDD's idiocy
and needs to have his face rubbed in the contradiction before he notices and reverts to agreeing.
cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
Sensor observed it.
All the sensor observed was its own amount and rate of temperature change...which was then converted to an electrical signal which was then translated into an image...the diagram is a fanciful opinion of "something" that might or might not be happening...what IS happening is that the sensor is measuring its internal temperature change....nothing more.
Sensor saw negative flux flow towards the cold object . FailPost observedcooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.
Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect
Sensor observed it.
Looks to me like waves are going in both directions.
You think that drawing is a measured observation? You think that statement says anything other than that the sensor is doing anything other than measuring its own temperature change and converting that change to an image?
It’s a picture. How is that observed? ExplainYou’re blind
Looks to me like waves are going in both directions.
You don't see arrows going both ways between the target and the sensor? DERP!
Yes, the sensor observes the net thermal flux.
They wrote an entire book about the sensors that observe.
Is English your second language?
They wrote an entire book on it and you still don't have any idea what is happening, or how the sensor works...the only thing the sensor "observes" is the amount and rate of its own temperature change...that is what is being observed, measured, and converted into an image.....Where in that book did you get that the sensor is "observing" anything other than its own temperature?
Fooled by instrumentation again...and why? because you have no idea what the instrumentation is actually measuring... And there is no actual observation or measurement of the sort of energy movement your line drawing depicts...it is opinion based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. All that can actually be determined by the sensor array is heat gain, heat loss, or no temperature change.
“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell. It is the mathematical difference between influx and efflux. Net flux = Influx − Efflux. Similar to influx and efflux, net flux is reported as a rate.Jan 3, 2014”Yes, the sensor observes the net thermal flux.
They wrote an entire book about the sensors that observe.
Is English your second language?
I gave my explanation as this relates to.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux
You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.
“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.
In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux.
I agree.
Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.
If they had actual evidence, you think they might have shown it rather than simply posting a drawing based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model?
I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm and they don't know how their own product works? I can't answer for them since I am not them. I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth basically voiding the fact that the device is measuring cold photons whatever those are, but I'll use your language for ease of discussion. Yet again, no observation has been achieved. Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold. Warm to cold as it is written and observed.Haven’t seen any. Where’s that blue breath from the girl? Hahahaha loser no observation no evidence!! Check mateYeah, neat picture. So what?You’re blind
You don't see arrows going both ways between the target and the sensor? DERP!
Does evidence cause you pain?
Haven’t seen any.
Of course not. What do the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors know about sensors compared
to SSDD and jc456?
DURR.
he has evidence, the fact you don't have any.“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell. It is the mathematical difference between influx and efflux. Net flux = Influx − Efflux. Similar to influx and efflux, net flux is reported as a rate.Jan 3, 2014”
I gave my explanation as this relates to.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux
You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.
“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.
In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux.
I agree.
Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.
If they had actual evidence, you think they might have shown it rather than simply posting a drawing based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model?
If they had actual evidence, you think they might have shown it
If you had actual evidence, you think you might have posted it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell. It is the mathematical difference between influx and efflux. Net flux = Influx − Efflux. Similar to influx and efflux, net flux is reported as a rate.Jan 3, 2014”Yes, the sensor observes the net thermal flux.
They wrote an entire book about the sensors that observe.
Is English your second language?
I gave my explanation as this relates to.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux
You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.
“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.
In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux.
I agree.
Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.
If they had actual evidence, you think they might have shown it rather than simply posting a drawing based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model?
I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm and they don't know how their own product works? I can't answer for them since I am not them. I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth basically voiding the fact that the device is measuring cold photons whatever those are, but I'll use your language for ease of discussion. Yet again, no observation has been achieved. Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold. Warm to cold as it is written and observed.Haven’t seen any. Where’s that blue breath from the girl? Hahahaha loser no observation no evidence!! Check mateYeah, neat picture. So what?You don't see arrows going both ways between the target and the sensor? DERP!
Does evidence cause you pain?
Haven’t seen any.
Of course not. What do the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors know about sensors compared
to SSDD and jc456?
DURR.
he has evidence, the fact you don't have any.Net flux = Influx − Efflux
You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.
“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.
In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux.
I agree.
Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.
If they had actual evidence, you think they might have shown it rather than simply posting a drawing based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model?
If they had actual evidence, you think they might have shown it
If you had actual evidence, you think you might have posted it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell. It is the mathematical difference between influx and efflux. Net flux = Influx − Efflux. Similar to influx and efflux, net flux is reported as a rate.Jan 3, 2014”
I gave my explanation as this relates to.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux
You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.
“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.
In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux.
I agree.
Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.
If they had actual evidence, you think they might have shown it rather than simply posting a drawing based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model?
sure you do, you posted it as observed to me! Are you withdrawing your post then? I asked you for observed image and you gave me that drawing. I knew it wasn't observations of anything, yet you continued to post it three times I believe. hmmmmmmm yeah I think you thought it was observed, you're far too smart to think it was a drawing of a how it's supposed to work.Sensor saw negative flux flow towards the cold object . Fail
Looks to me like waves are going in both directions.
You think that drawing is a measured observation? You think that statement says anything other than that the sensor is doing anything other than measuring its own temperature change and converting that change to an image?
You think that drawing is a measured observation?
No.
You think the Handbook Of Modern Sensors posted a picture of energy flowing in both directions, in error?
Please, correct them, post their response.
Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm and they don't know how their own product works? I can't answer for them since I am not them. I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth basically voiding the fact that the device is measuring cold photons whatever those are, but I'll use your language for ease of discussion. Yet again, no observation has been achieved. Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold. Warm to cold as it is written and observed.Haven’t seen any. Where’s that blue breath from the girl? Hahahaha loser no observation no evidence!! Check mateYeah, neat picture. So what?
Does evidence cause you pain?
Haven’t seen any.
Of course not. What do the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors know about sensors compared
to SSDD and jc456?
DURR.
I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm
You guess wrong.
I can't answer for them since I am not them.
You think they're wrong. Send them an email.
Explain your reasoning. When they admit their error, post it here.
I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth
Send the manufacturer of that camera an email. Ask them why?
Post their response here.
Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold.
Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux
And isn’t observed. provide an actual snap shot rather than a drawing?“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell. It is the mathematical difference between influx and efflux. Net flux = Influx − Efflux. Similar to influx and efflux, net flux is reported as a rate.Jan 3, 2014”It’s a picture. How is that observed? Explain
Yes, the sensor observes the net thermal flux.
They wrote an entire book about the sensors that observe.
Is English your second language?
I gave my explanation as this relates to.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux
You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.
“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.
In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux.
I agree.
Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.
Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.
