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.
.cold molecules hitting a warm surface is not energy from a cold object moving to a warm object...it is simply one physical entity hitting another object...molecules are not energy.
Excuse me if I don't place much value on the opinion of an idiot. And I don't ridicule models...I am all for models...the more models the merrier. What I ridicule is people who accept unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over observable, measurable, testable reality....and until such time as physical observation and measurement bear out the predictions of a model is fiction since it can be nothing else...I ridicule people like you because you knowingly accept fiction over reality...or...considering how often you are fooled by instrumentation, maybe you don't knowingly accept fiction over reality...maybe you only do it in abject ignorance.
The very definition of fiction describes unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models to a T...fiction: an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argumentor explanation.
Since there is no physical evidence of spontaneous two way energy movement, to think it happens is an act of imagination...the fact that it is claimed but can not be observed means that it is postulated...not that it actually happens. Again.. you fail to recognize the difference between what is real, and what is not.
There certainly is energy. The molecules have random kinetic energy. Some molecules impart that energy randomly to the warm surface.
However it is and must be the case that the hotter more energetic vibrating molecules of the surface imparts even more energy to the gas than it recieves.
Quantum mechanics is all mathematical models and you think it is fiction. One way energy flow violates both quantum and classical physics observations and measurements. That is definitely not fiction. You proved my point. You obviously don't understand that because you are incapable of abstract thinking in physics.
Before you use the strawman back conduction, you will have to clearly define what you mean because in the current context, it has no physical meaning. I have already indicated that the end result is that heat goes from the warmer surface to the colder gas, which means that the SloT is not violated.There certainly is energy. The molecules have random kinetic energy. Some molecules impart that energy randomly to the warm surface.
So now you are claiming that there is such a thing as back conduction? Got any observed measurements of back conduction?
However it is and must be the case that the hotter more energetic vibrating molecules of the surface imparts even more energy to the gas than it recieves.
So what'll it be? Observed measurements of back conduction or some excuse as to why you can't produce them...or will you jump straight on to name calling and skip any pretense at supporting your claim?
So what if it violates quantum mechanics.... etc
Quantum mechanics is all mathematical models and you think it is fiction. One way energy flow violates both quantum and classical physics observations and measurements. That is definitely not fiction. You proved my point. You obviously don't understand that because you are incapable of abstract thinking in physics.
So what if it violates quantum mechanics...quantum mechanics violates itself and is chock full of contradictions...hell this very topic is a contradiction...claiming that radiation exists as both particles and waves is a glaring contradiction....yet it is accepted at present as real...and why? Because at present we don't understand enough about radiation or its properties to say whether it is particles or waves. So we accept a story that lets it be both, and will continue to accept the story till such time as we become advanced enough to know one way or the other. 100 years on, physicists still can't even agree on which interpretation of QM is the correct one.
And if one way energy flow violated observations and measurements, then you could easily produce observations and measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...you can't...and why can't you? Because there are none... You are simply talking out of your ass, hoping that someone will believe what you have to say.
It would seem that you equate imagining fiction to be real abstract thinking...people who occasionally leave their parent's basements to dress up as hobbits and pretend to be in middle earth while in reality are simply adults dressing up wandering in fallow fields must be top shelf abstract thinkers to you. If you were an adept abstract thinker, you would first, admit that the reality is that there are no measurements, or observations of spontaneous energy movement either radiation or conduction and move on from there....rather than keep on claiming that such observations and measurements exist even though you can't provide any because they, in fact, do not exist. Lying is not abstract thinking...lying is just lying.
And sidestepping off on this tangent of pretending that I can't see the emperors new clothes because I am a poor abstract thinker still leaves the emperor's hairy pimpled ass exposed to all who are in touch with reality.
he answered you hereIt should be obvious by now that I'm not talking about radiation. I am giving a counter example to your misunderstanding of the SLoT, where I illustrate that energy from a cold substance can hit a warmer substance I am giving a well-known example of conduction – how molecular kinetic energy from a cold gas can move toward and hit a warmer surface. Of course the kinetic energy flow is two-way, and the warm surface always imparts more energy to the cold gas than the gas to the surface.How does what molecules hit have anything to do with radiative energy movement....of course molecules of a cold substance can tough a warm surface...it happens 80 million times every morning when a cold egg is dropped into a hot frying pan...that egg, does not impart energy to the frying pan...the frying pan loses energy VIA CONDUCTION to the egg....
Talking about conduction does not prove two way radiative energy movement...
You are avoiding the question. I'm not talking about an egg and frying pan.
Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
So what if it violates quantum mechanics...quantum mechanics violates itself and is chock full of contradictions...hell this very topic is a contradiction...claiming that radiation exists as both particles and waves is a glaring contradiction....yet it is accepted at present as real...and why? Because at present we don't understand enough about radiation or its properties to say whether it is particles or waves. So we accept a story that lets it be both, and will continue to accept the story till such time as we become advanced enough to know one way or the other. 100 years on, physicists still can't even agree on which interpretation of QM is the correct one
And if one way energy flow violated observations and measurements, then you could easily produce observations and measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...you can't...and why can't you? Because there are none... You are simply talking out of your ass, hoping that someone will believe what you have to say.
Before you use the strawman back conduction, you will have to clearly define what you mean because in the current context, it has no physical meaning. I have already indicated that the end result is that heat goes from the warmer surface to the colder gas, which means that the SloT is not violated.There certainly is energy. The molecules have random kinetic energy. Some molecules impart that energy randomly to the warm surface.
So now you are claiming that there is such a thing as back conduction? Got any observed measurements of back conduction?
However it is and must be the case that the hotter more energetic vibrating molecules of the surface imparts even more energy to the gas than it recieves.
So what'll it be? Observed measurements of back conduction or some excuse as to why you can't produce them...or will you jump straight on to name calling and skip any pretense at supporting your claim?
Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
So what if it violates quantum mechanics.... etc
Quantum mechanics is an ultimate abstraction that mathematically models behavior of atoms in solids and gases, spectra, black body radiation, and many other observations and measurements... very successfully.
he answered you hereIt should be obvious by now that I'm not talking about radiation. I am giving a counter example to your misunderstanding of the SLoT, where I illustrate that energy from a cold substance can hit a warmer substance I am giving a well-known example of conduction – how molecular kinetic energy from a cold gas can move toward and hit a warmer surface. Of course the kinetic energy flow is two-way, and the warm surface always imparts more energy to the cold gas than the gas to the surface.How does what molecules hit have anything to do with radiative energy movement....of course molecules of a cold substance can tough a warm surface...it happens 80 million times every morning when a cold egg is dropped into a hot frying pan...that egg, does not impart energy to the frying pan...the frying pan loses energy VIA CONDUCTION to the egg....
Talking about conduction does not prove two way radiative energy movement...
You are avoiding the question. I'm not talking about an egg and frying pan.
Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
You claim to only believe in things with solid evidence through experiment.
Yet you totally discount a hundred years of doing the double slit experiment that shows light has properties of both particles and waves.
That would be enough but it gets worse. Electrons are matter not light, and they show properties of both particles and waves as well in the double slit experiment.
The results of the double slit experiment are not going to change. Reality does not care whether we understand the reasons completely or not at all.
The speeds of individual molecules in a volume of gas vary in a predictable way. They also constantly change by random collision.
You say the SLoT prohibits molecules from accepting energy from lower energy molecules. That would rapidly result in conditions where no collisions would be allowed.
Wuwei asked you if a cold gas molecule was allowed to hit a warm wall. That molecule adds energy initially, and then takes away more than it arrived with (on average). A net movement of energy from warm to cold, but made up of energy going in both directions.
Did I not say that molecules of a cold gas hit an adjacent warm surface
lets see the observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement
There is no radiative energy transfer going on there...and the molecule may provide some bit energy in the form of pressure, no different from throwing a snowball at the warmer side of a house.
The speeds of individual molecules in a volume of gas vary in a predictable way. They also constantly change by random collision.
You say the SLoT prohibits molecules from accepting energy from lower energy molecules. That would rapidly result in conditions where no collisions would be allowed.
I don't say that the second law prevents anything...I say that the second law says what is. We don't have any idea why it is prevented, or how it is prevented...all we know is that when we look, and attempt to measure, we see that it is being prevented. Energy does not move spontaneously from cold to warm...why? Someday we may know...or we may never know. Like you said...reality doesn't care whether we know or not...and it doesn't care whether the story we tell ourselves jibes with observable reality or not... You prefer the story over observable, measurable reality for some reason that you probably don't even fully understand yourself. Lets here the story you tell about that...and again, reality doesn't care whether you really understand or not.
Wuwei asked you if a cold gas molecule was allowed to hit a warm wall. That molecule adds energy initially, and then takes away more than it arrived with (on average). A net movement of energy from warm to cold, but made up of energy going in both directions.
There is no radiative energy transfer going on there...and the molecule may provide some bit energy in the form of pressure, no different from throwing a snowball at the warmer side of a house...but that energy is mechanical energy...the only thermal energy being made in the exchange is energy being transferred from the warm wall to the molecules of the colder ice crystals in contact with the wall. You can make cold objects contact warm objects all you like but the only thermal energy being exchanged is from the warm to the cold because that is the only direction energy can move.....and again, the key word here is spontaneous....is there anything spontaneous about a cold object being moved into contact with a warm object?
So tell me some more stories ian...but to add the caveat at the end that reality really doesn't care what story you tell about it..reality is going to go right on letting energy spontaneously move from warm to cool.
The speeds of individual molecules in a volume of gas vary in a predictable way. They also constantly change by random collision.
You say the SLoT prohibits molecules from accepting energy from lower energy molecules. That would rapidly result in conditions where no collisions would be allowed.
I don't say that the second law prevents anything...I say that the second law says what is. We don't have any idea why it is prevented, or how it is prevented...all we know is that when we look, and attempt to measure, we see that it is being prevented. Energy does not move spontaneously from cold to warm...why? Someday we may know...or we may never know. Like you said...reality doesn't care whether we know or not...and it doesn't care whether the story we tell ourselves jibes with observable reality or not... You prefer the story over observable, measurable reality for some reason that you probably don't even fully understand yourself. Lets here the story you tell about that...and again, reality doesn't care whether you really understand or not.
Wuwei asked you if a cold gas molecule was allowed to hit a warm wall. That molecule adds energy initially, and then takes away more than it arrived with (on average). A net movement of energy from warm to cold, but made up of energy going in both directions.
There is no radiative energy transfer going on there...and the molecule may provide some bit energy in the form of pressure, no different from throwing a snowball at the warmer side of a house...but that energy is mechanical energy...the only thermal energy being made in the exchange is energy being transferred from the warm wall to the molecules of the colder ice crystals in contact with the wall. You can make cold objects contact warm objects all you like but the only thermal energy being exchanged is from the warm to the cold because that is the only direction energy can move.....and again, the key word here is spontaneous....is there anything spontaneous about a cold object being moved into contact with a warm object?
So tell me some more stories ian...but to add the caveat at the end that reality really doesn't care what story you tell about it..reality is going to go right on letting energy spontaneously move from warm to cool.
I think what we'll never know is why you CHOOSE to be so stupid.
