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.
until you can show observed measured evidence of a cold object warming a warmer object this...It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object,And you keep going back to "net" and I keep asking if you have a single piece of observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...at which case, rather than simply say "no...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...there are only models predicting spontaneous two way energy flow." You go right back through the whole process again. Are you unaware that at the end of the whole thing where you claim two way net energy flow,, I am going to just ask again if you have any physical evidence...observations, measurements etc? Does that pattern escape you? Is pattern recognition not part of abstract thinking in your little part of the world?
Unless you can provide some observed measured evidence of two way energy flow, there is no point in taking another lap on this merry go round again...the fact is that you don't...you have a model and its predictions...a hundred year old model whose prediction has yet to be observed or measured...that is what you have and that is all you have...
I have no idea if there's observed measured evidence of two way energy flow. In fact I doubt if anyone has actually tested that because the results are already known by, yes, mathematical models which you pretend to eschew. Also why would anyone test something as simple as that when they know it would violate other laws of physics which have been proven time and again over the last one hundred years.
The irony is that you needlessly cling to demanding observed measured evidence on one very simple topic of thermodynamics at the expense of turning around and denying the observed measured evidence of the rest of science that would nullify your opinion.
That is hypocrisy at it's best.
As you well know, net two way flow of thermal radiation and thermal kinetic energy at the molecular level is totally compatible with all of thermodynamics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.
Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
I really don't care if you want to be resolutely obstinate against one hundred years of physics. I'm simply showing the (low) readership of this board how illogical and pathological you are on science, and that your ideas are totally anti-science and simply wrong.
So, if you want to run off, I really don't care. Meanwhile it has been fun.
Yeah, just thinking about how one would apply a strictly one-way thermal radiation flow rule across all conceivable situations, and it quickly devolves into absurdity. A vibrating particle of matter will emit electromagnetic waves who’s trajectories will depend of the directions the vibrations occur in. So let’s consider some black body object just sitting in a room, and at thermal equilibrium with the room. Net heat transfer is zero, but does that mean the black body is not emitting any thermal radiation outwardly at all? I believe the known physics involved predict that on aggregate, the vibrating particles would have to emit electromagnetic waves outwardly from the entire surface of the object.Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
dude, just post the observed measurements of the spontaneous two way energy flow. that's all he's asked for.Yeah, just thinking about how one would apply a strictly one-way thermal radiation flow rule across all conceivable situations, and it quickly devolves into absurdity. A vibrating particle of matter will emit electromagnetic waves who’s trajectories will depend of the directions the vibrations occur in. So let’s consider some black body object just sitting in a room, and at thermal equilibrium with the room. Net heat transfer is zero, but does that mean the black body is not emitting any thermal radiation outwardly at all? I believe the known physics involved predict that on aggregate, the vibrating particles would have to emit electromagnetic waves outwardly from the entire surface of the object.Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
Is SSDD ready to present some hitherto unknown Mystery Law X whereby the heat energy from the surrounding room is able to strike the black body object in just the right way so that it’s particles emit all their radiation inward, while the black body is somehow able realign the vibrations of the surrounding particles in a similar fashion?
Let’s go further and consider two objects in space: Earth and Pluto. Earth is warmer than Pluto, so would Mystery Law X allow for Earth’s radiation to strike Pluto’s particles in just such a way as that Pluto’s electromagnetic radiation waves are never emitted at Earth? If I was to open a container of (very cold) alpha phase solid oxygen on Earth, would Mystery Law X now realign the vibrations of Pluto particles? Seeing as such a rule would be completely unnecessary, Occam’s razor informs me that it does not exist.
But then if Mystery Law X doesn’t exist, how can we explain the thermal radiation behavior of a single cool object in a warm room? It would still have vibrating particles, and no Mystery Law X to force all its thermal radiation inward. Electromagnetic waves emitted from the surface of the cool object would propagate outwardly at the speed of light. If the room had solid walls, those ‘cool’ radiation waves would basically have to be absorbed by at least the warm walls, especially if the walls were made out of thick, electromagnetic radiation absorbing materials.
that statement is referring to net transfer of energy.If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever ....
Exactly. I already quoted that from the hyperphysics site. Why do you choose to ignore that? Just so you can rant? When you get angry like that you just don't think straight.
It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.
The rest of your post is non-sequitur.
does it state that or are you filling in the blanks?
until you can show observed measured evidence of a cold object warming a warmer object this...It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object,And you keep going back to "net" and I keep asking if you have a single piece of observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...at which case, rather than simply say "no...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...there are only models predicting spontaneous two way energy flow." You go right back through the whole process again. Are you unaware that at the end of the whole thing where you claim two way net energy flow,, I am going to just ask again if you have any physical evidence...observations, measurements etc? Does that pattern escape you? Is pattern recognition not part of abstract thinking in your little part of the world?
Unless you can provide some observed measured evidence of two way energy flow, there is no point in taking another lap on this merry go round again...the fact is that you don't...you have a model and its predictions...a hundred year old model whose prediction has yet to be observed or measured...that is what you have and that is all you have...
I have no idea if there's observed measured evidence of two way energy flow. In fact I doubt if anyone has actually tested that because the results are already known by, yes, mathematical models which you pretend to eschew. Also why would anyone test something as simple as that when they know it would violate other laws of physics which have been proven time and again over the last one hundred years.
The irony is that you needlessly cling to demanding observed measured evidence on one very simple topic of thermodynamics at the expense of turning around and denying the observed measured evidence of the rest of science that would nullify your opinion.
That is hypocrisy at it's best.
As you well know, net two way flow of thermal radiation and thermal kinetic energy at the molecular level is totally compatible with all of thermodynamics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.
Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
I really don't care if you want to be resolutely obstinate against one hundred years of physics. I'm simply showing the (low) readership of this board how illogical and pathological you are on science, and that your ideas are totally anti-science and simply wrong.
So, if you want to run off, I really don't care. Meanwhile it has been fun.
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence. since we have never observed any.
and yet you have no observation of it actually happening as net..that statement is referring to net transfer of energy.If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever ....
Exactly. I already quoted that from the hyperphysics site. Why do you choose to ignore that? Just so you can rant? When you get angry like that you just don't think straight.
It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.
The rest of your post is non-sequitur.
does it state that or are you filling in the blanks?
View attachment 189610
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Weird. We have all sorts of sources that explicitly disagree with SSDD's claims,
and he still has none that explicitly agree with his claims.
It's almost like he's all alone with his theory.
Yeah, just thinking about how one would apply a strictly one-way thermal radiation flow rule across all conceivable situations, and it quickly devolves into absurdity. A vibrating particle of matter will emit electromagnetic waves who’s trajectories will depend of the directions the vibrations occur in. So let’s consider some black body object just sitting in a room, and at thermal equilibrium with the room. Net heat transfer is zero, but does that mean the black body is not emitting any thermal radiation outwardly at all? I believe the known physics involved predict that on aggregate, the vibrating particles would have to emit electromagnetic waves outwardly from the entire surface of the object.Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
Is SSDD ready to present some hitherto unknown Mystery Law X whereby the heat energy from the surrounding room is able to strike the black body object in just the right way so that it’s particles emit all their radiation inward, while the black body is somehow able realign the vibrations of the surrounding particles in a similar fashion?
Let’s go further and consider two objects in space: Earth and Pluto. Earth is warmer than Pluto, so would Mystery Law X allow for Earth’s radiation to strike Pluto’s particles in just such a way as that Pluto’s electromagnetic radiation waves are never emitted at Earth? If I was to open a container of (very cold) alpha phase solid oxygen on Earth, would Mystery Law X now realign the vibrations of Pluto particles? Seeing as such a rule would be completely unnecessary, Occam’s razor informs me that it does not exist.
But then if Mystery Law X doesn’t exist, how can we explain the thermal radiation behavior of a single cool object in a warm room? It would still have vibrating particles, and no Mystery Law X to force all its thermal radiation inward. Electromagnetic waves emitted from the surface of the cool object would propagate outwardly at the speed of light. If the room had solid walls, those ‘cool’ radiation waves would basically have to be absorbed by at least the warm walls, especially if the walls were made out of thick, electromagnetic radiation absorbing materials.
all you got to do is present the observed energy moving cold to hot in any way. just post it up.until you can show observed measured evidence of a cold object warming a warmer object this...It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object,And you keep going back to "net" and I keep asking if you have a single piece of observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...at which case, rather than simply say "no...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...there are only models predicting spontaneous two way energy flow." You go right back through the whole process again. Are you unaware that at the end of the whole thing where you claim two way net energy flow,, I am going to just ask again if you have any physical evidence...observations, measurements etc? Does that pattern escape you? Is pattern recognition not part of abstract thinking in your little part of the world?
Unless you can provide some observed measured evidence of two way energy flow, there is no point in taking another lap on this merry go round again...the fact is that you don't...you have a model and its predictions...a hundred year old model whose prediction has yet to be observed or measured...that is what you have and that is all you have...
I have no idea if there's observed measured evidence of two way energy flow. In fact I doubt if anyone has actually tested that because the results are already known by, yes, mathematical models which you pretend to eschew. Also why would anyone test something as simple as that when they know it would violate other laws of physics which have been proven time and again over the last one hundred years.
The irony is that you needlessly cling to demanding observed measured evidence on one very simple topic of thermodynamics at the expense of turning around and denying the observed measured evidence of the rest of science that would nullify your opinion.
That is hypocrisy at it's best.
As you well know, net two way flow of thermal radiation and thermal kinetic energy at the molecular level is totally compatible with all of thermodynamics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.
Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
I really don't care if you want to be resolutely obstinate against one hundred years of physics. I'm simply showing the (low) readership of this board how illogical and pathological you are on science, and that your ideas are totally anti-science and simply wrong.
So, if you want to run off, I really don't care. Meanwhile it has been fun.
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence. since we have never observed any.
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence
Maybe you can help your buddy SSDD out?
Any observations that show objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?
I have plenty of sources that say, at equilibrium, energy in equals energy out.
You know, two way flow.
I've never seen any of SSDD's sources that say one way only. Or no way.
Weird, eh?
just post the observed energy. just once.Yeah, just thinking about how one would apply a strictly one-way thermal radiation flow rule across all conceivable situations, and it quickly devolves into absurdity. A vibrating particle of matter will emit electromagnetic waves who’s trajectories will depend of the directions the vibrations occur in. So let’s consider some black body object just sitting in a room, and at thermal equilibrium with the room. Net heat transfer is zero, but does that mean the black body is not emitting any thermal radiation outwardly at all? I believe the known physics involved predict that on aggregate, the vibrating particles would have to emit electromagnetic waves outwardly from the entire surface of the object.Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
Is SSDD ready to present some hitherto unknown Mystery Law X whereby the heat energy from the surrounding room is able to strike the black body object in just the right way so that it’s particles emit all their radiation inward, while the black body is somehow able realign the vibrations of the surrounding particles in a similar fashion?
Let’s go further and consider two objects in space: Earth and Pluto. Earth is warmer than Pluto, so would Mystery Law X allow for Earth’s radiation to strike Pluto’s particles in just such a way as that Pluto’s electromagnetic radiation waves are never emitted at Earth? If I was to open a container of (very cold) alpha phase solid oxygen on Earth, would Mystery Law X now realign the vibrations of Pluto particles? Seeing as such a rule would be completely unnecessary, Occam’s razor informs me that it does not exist.
But then if Mystery Law X doesn’t exist, how can we explain the thermal radiation behavior of a single cool object in a warm room? It would still have vibrating particles, and no Mystery Law X to force all its thermal radiation inward. Electromagnetic waves emitted from the surface of the cool object would propagate outwardly at the speed of light. If the room had solid walls, those ‘cool’ radiation waves would basically have to be absorbed by at least the warm walls, especially if the walls were made out of thick, electromagnetic radiation absorbing materials.
His theory allows objects to see matter billions of light years away, billions of years in the future, before deciding whether to emit that photon.
and yet you have no observation of it actually happening as net..that statement is referring to net transfer of energy.If you place a piece of hot iron in a bath of cold air, the only energy transfer happening is the iron is losing energy to the cold air....the iron doesn't gain any energy whatsoever ....
Exactly. I already quoted that from the hyperphysics site. Why do you choose to ignore that? Just so you can rant? When you get angry like that you just don't think straight.
It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.
The rest of your post is non-sequitur.
does it state that or are you filling in the blanks?
View attachment 189610
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Weird. We have all sorts of sources that explicitly disagree with SSDD's claims,
and he still has none that explicitly agree with his claims.
It's almost like he's all alone with his theory.
all you got to do is present the observed energy moving cold to hot in any way. just post it up.until you can show observed measured evidence of a cold object warming a warmer object this...It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object,And you keep going back to "net" and I keep asking if you have a single piece of observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...at which case, rather than simply say "no...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...there are only models predicting spontaneous two way energy flow." You go right back through the whole process again. Are you unaware that at the end of the whole thing where you claim two way net energy flow,, I am going to just ask again if you have any physical evidence...observations, measurements etc? Does that pattern escape you? Is pattern recognition not part of abstract thinking in your little part of the world?
Unless you can provide some observed measured evidence of two way energy flow, there is no point in taking another lap on this merry go round again...the fact is that you don't...you have a model and its predictions...a hundred year old model whose prediction has yet to be observed or measured...that is what you have and that is all you have...
I have no idea if there's observed measured evidence of two way energy flow. In fact I doubt if anyone has actually tested that because the results are already known by, yes, mathematical models which you pretend to eschew. Also why would anyone test something as simple as that when they know it would violate other laws of physics which have been proven time and again over the last one hundred years.
The irony is that you needlessly cling to demanding observed measured evidence on one very simple topic of thermodynamics at the expense of turning around and denying the observed measured evidence of the rest of science that would nullify your opinion.
That is hypocrisy at it's best.
As you well know, net two way flow of thermal radiation and thermal kinetic energy at the molecular level is totally compatible with all of thermodynamics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.
Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
I really don't care if you want to be resolutely obstinate against one hundred years of physics. I'm simply showing the (low) readership of this board how illogical and pathological you are on science, and that your ideas are totally anti-science and simply wrong.
So, if you want to run off, I really don't care. Meanwhile it has been fun.
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence. since we have never observed any.
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence
Maybe you can help your buddy SSDD out?
Any observations that show objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?
I have plenty of sources that say, at equilibrium, energy in equals energy out.
You know, two way flow.
I've never seen any of SSDD's sources that say one way only. Or no way.
Weird, eh?
i told you it wasn't spontaneous. you missed that how many times now?all you got to do is present the observed energy moving cold to hot in any way. just post it up.until you can show observed measured evidence of a cold object warming a warmer object this...It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object,And you keep going back to "net" and I keep asking if you have a single piece of observed measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...at which case, rather than simply say "no...there are no measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...there are only models predicting spontaneous two way energy flow." You go right back through the whole process again. Are you unaware that at the end of the whole thing where you claim two way net energy flow,, I am going to just ask again if you have any physical evidence...observations, measurements etc? Does that pattern escape you? Is pattern recognition not part of abstract thinking in your little part of the world?
Unless you can provide some observed measured evidence of two way energy flow, there is no point in taking another lap on this merry go round again...the fact is that you don't...you have a model and its predictions...a hundred year old model whose prediction has yet to be observed or measured...that is what you have and that is all you have...
I have no idea if there's observed measured evidence of two way energy flow. In fact I doubt if anyone has actually tested that because the results are already known by, yes, mathematical models which you pretend to eschew. Also why would anyone test something as simple as that when they know it would violate other laws of physics which have been proven time and again over the last one hundred years.
The irony is that you needlessly cling to demanding observed measured evidence on one very simple topic of thermodynamics at the expense of turning around and denying the observed measured evidence of the rest of science that would nullify your opinion.
That is hypocrisy at it's best.
As you well know, net two way flow of thermal radiation and thermal kinetic energy at the molecular level is totally compatible with all of thermodynamics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.
Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
I really don't care if you want to be resolutely obstinate against one hundred years of physics. I'm simply showing the (low) readership of this board how illogical and pathological you are on science, and that your ideas are totally anti-science and simply wrong.
So, if you want to run off, I really don't care. Meanwhile it has been fun.
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence. since we have never observed any.
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence
Maybe you can help your buddy SSDD out?
Any observations that show objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?
I have plenty of sources that say, at equilibrium, energy in equals energy out.
You know, two way flow.
I've never seen any of SSDD's sources that say one way only. Or no way.
Weird, eh?
You never did explain why the cool surface of the Sun can emit at the hot corona........weird.
i told you it wasn't spontaneous. you missed that how many times now?all you got to do is present the observed energy moving cold to hot in any way. just post it up.until you can show observed measured evidence of a cold object warming a warmer object this...It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object,I have no idea if there's observed measured evidence of two way energy flow. In fact I doubt if anyone has actually tested that because the results are already known by, yes, mathematical models which you pretend to eschew. Also why would anyone test something as simple as that when they know it would violate other laws of physics which have been proven time and again over the last one hundred years.
The irony is that you needlessly cling to demanding observed measured evidence on one very simple topic of thermodynamics at the expense of turning around and denying the observed measured evidence of the rest of science that would nullify your opinion.
That is hypocrisy at it's best.
As you well know, net two way flow of thermal radiation and thermal kinetic energy at the molecular level is totally compatible with all of thermodynamics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.
Since one way flow of radiation violates well-known laws of physics, which have been observed and measured countless times your anti-science stance on physical law is not only illogical, it is also pathological.
I really don't care if you want to be resolutely obstinate against one hundred years of physics. I'm simply showing the (low) readership of this board how illogical and pathological you are on science, and that your ideas are totally anti-science and simply wrong.
So, if you want to run off, I really don't care. Meanwhile it has been fun.
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence. since we have never observed any.
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence
Maybe you can help your buddy SSDD out?
Any observations that show objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?
I have plenty of sources that say, at equilibrium, energy in equals energy out.
You know, two way flow.
I've never seen any of SSDD's sources that say one way only. Or no way.
Weird, eh?
You never did explain why the cool surface of the Sun can emit at the hot corona........weird.
show the work, the entire ball is work.i told you it wasn't spontaneous. you missed that how many times now?all you got to do is present the observed energy moving cold to hot in any way. just post it up.until you can show observed measured evidence of a cold object warming a warmer object this...It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object,
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence. since we have never observed any.
We will continue to ask for the observed evidence
Maybe you can help your buddy SSDD out?
Any observations that show objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?
I have plenty of sources that say, at equilibrium, energy in equals energy out.
You know, two way flow.
I've never seen any of SSDD's sources that say one way only. Or no way.
Weird, eh?
You never did explain why the cool surface of the Sun can emit at the hot corona........weird.
i told you it wasn't spontaneous.
And you keeping failing to explain where the work is occurring on the surface
in order to allow non-spontaneous emitting from the surface.
you missed that how many times now?
Every single time you've failed to show the work. Weird.
show the work, the entire ball is work.i told you it wasn't spontaneous. you missed that how many times now?all you got to do is present the observed energy moving cold to hot in any way. just post it up.We will continue to ask for the observed evidence
Maybe you can help your buddy SSDD out?
Any observations that show objects at equilibrium cease all radiating?
I have plenty of sources that say, at equilibrium, energy in equals energy out.
You know, two way flow.
I've never seen any of SSDD's sources that say one way only. Or no way.
Weird, eh?
You never did explain why the cool surface of the Sun can emit at the hot corona........weird.
i told you it wasn't spontaneous.
And you keeping failing to explain where the work is occurring on the surface
in order to allow non-spontaneous emitting from the surface.
you missed that how many times now?
Every single time you've failed to show the work. Weird.
I said the sun was pure gas, yep? You ever see those flares that fly off of it?show the work, the entire ball is work.i told you it wasn't spontaneous. you missed that how many times now?all you got to do is present the observed energy moving cold to hot in any way. just post it up.
You never did explain why the cool surface of the Sun can emit at the hot corona........weird.
i told you it wasn't spontaneous.
And you keeping failing to explain where the work is occurring on the surface
in order to allow non-spontaneous emitting from the surface.
you missed that how many times now?
Every single time you've failed to show the work. Weird.
You think fusion occurs everywhere in the Sun? LOL!
That's funny.
I said the sun was pure gas, yep? You ever see those flares that fly off of it?show the work, the entire ball is work.i told you it wasn't spontaneous. you missed that how many times now?You never did explain why the cool surface of the Sun can emit at the hot corona........weird.
i told you it wasn't spontaneous.
And you keeping failing to explain where the work is occurring on the surface
in order to allow non-spontaneous emitting from the surface.
you missed that how many times now?
Every single time you've failed to show the work. Weird.
You think fusion occurs everywhere in the Sun? LOL!
That's funny.
something on fire is on fire based on work.I said the sun was pure gas, yep? You ever see those flares that fly off of it?show the work, the entire ball is work.i told you it wasn't spontaneous. you missed that how many times now?
i told you it wasn't spontaneous.
And you keeping failing to explain where the work is occurring on the surface
in order to allow non-spontaneous emitting from the surface.
you missed that how many times now?
Every single time you've failed to show the work. Weird.
You think fusion occurs everywhere in the Sun? LOL!
That's funny.
Fusion isn't occurring in gas at the surface.
something on fire is on fire based on work.I said the sun was pure gas, yep? You ever see those flares that fly off of it?show the work, the entire ball is work.i told you it wasn't spontaneous.
And you keeping failing to explain where the work is occurring on the surface
in order to allow non-spontaneous emitting from the surface.
you missed that how many times now?
Every single time you've failed to show the work. Weird.
You think fusion occurs everywhere in the Sun? LOL!
That's funny.
Fusion isn't occurring in gas at the surface.
the sun is full of energy radiating from it's core. yep! fire is energy and the heat source radiates out from it's core. now explain why the corona is hotter than that of the surface?something on fire is on fire based on work.I said the sun was pure gas, yep? You ever see those flares that fly off of it?show the work, the entire ball is work.
You think fusion occurs everywhere in the Sun? LOL!
That's funny.
Fusion isn't occurring in gas at the surface.
You think the Sun's fusion is like fire?
Dude!
