Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Fusion isn't occurring in gas at the surface.

something on fire is on fire based on work.

You think the Sun's fusion is like fire?

Dude!

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?

the sun is full of energy radiating from it's core.

Excellent!! You got one right.
But SSDD said that absorbing and radiating isn't work.
Was he wrong?

yep! fire is energy and the heat source radiates out from it's core.

Fire does release energy, but there is no fire at the Sun's core.
Or on the Sun's surface either.

 

[jc456]

I said the sun was pure gas, yep? You ever see those flares that fly off of it?

Fusion isn't occurring in gas at the surface.

something on fire is on fire based on work.

You think the Sun's fusion is like fire?

Dude!

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?

the sun is full of energy radiating from it's core.

Excellent!! You got one right.
But SSDD said that absorbing and radiating isn't work.
Was he wrong?

yep! fire is energy and the heat source radiates out from it's core.

Fire does release energy, but there is no fire at the Sun's core.
Or on the Sun's surface either.

But SSDD said that absorbing and radiating isn't work.

that isn't what he said. But hey, why post the facts.

 

[jc456]

I said the sun was pure gas, yep? You ever see those flares that fly off of it?

Fusion isn't occurring in gas at the surface.

something on fire is on fire based on work.

You think the Sun's fusion is like fire?

Dude!

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?

the sun is full of energy radiating from it's core.

Excellent!! You got one right.
But SSDD said that absorbing and radiating isn't work.
Was he wrong?

yep! fire is energy and the heat source radiates out from it's core.

Fire does release energy, but there is no fire at the Sun's core.
Or on the Sun's surface either.

then how does it produce solar flares?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fusion isn't occurring in gas at the surface.

something on fire is on fire based on work.

You think the Sun's fusion is like fire?

Dude!

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?

the sun is full of energy radiating from it's core.

Excellent!! You got one right.
But SSDD said that absorbing and radiating isn't work.
Was he wrong?

yep! fire is energy and the heat source radiates out from it's core.

Fire does release energy, but there is no fire at the Sun's core.
Or on the Sun's surface either.

But SSDD said that absorbing and radiating isn't work.

that isn't what he said. But hey, why post the facts.

that isn't what he said.

He has said that absorption and emission do not constitute work.
Was he wrong?

But hey, why post the facts.

You should ask SSDD.
He never has posted any facts that back up his one-way or no way emission claims.
Weird.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fusion isn't occurring in gas at the surface.

something on fire is on fire based on work.

You think the Sun's fusion is like fire?

Dude!

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?

the sun is full of energy radiating from it's core.

Excellent!! You got one right.
But SSDD said that absorbing and radiating isn't work.
Was he wrong?

yep! fire is energy and the heat source radiates out from it's core.

Fire does release energy, but there is no fire at the Sun's core.
Or on the Sun's surface either.

then how does it produce solar flares?

You think solar flares are fire?
Like oxygen combining with hydrogen?

Do you know the difference between fire and fusion?
Just for fun, why don't you post the difference here?

Thanks!!

 

[Wuwei]

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.

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.

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.

I agree. SSDD has a "not measurable/observable" mantra which he applies to radiation between objects. But ironically he refuses to apply the mantra to anything that shows he is wrong. My opinion is that he knows he is wrong and modern science is right, but he wants to troll people on this board who do understand the science. One indication is that his moniker means, Same Shit, Different Day. (Google it if you haven't seen that defn.) It certainly fits his one dimensional posts.

However it's hard to tell if "flat-earth" types like him really believe deep down that they are right, or if they are just sacrificing their dignity to be a troll.

 

[SSDD]

I have no idea if there's observed measured evidence of two way energy flow.

Why lie...you have been looking frantically for it for some time now...wanting to slap me down with it...it doesn't exist because it doesn't happen.

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.

Which "well known" law of physics demands two way energy flow? More talking out of your ass without the least bit of evidence to support you. We have been through this before...you add words that aren't there and claim that the statement "means" this or that as if the people who wrote the law weren't intelligent enough to say what they mean... And again, why lie about two way energy flow being measured and observed...we both well know that it hasn't....

So, if you want to run off, I really don't care. Meanwhile it has been fun.

What...going to sulk now? If I won't see the emperors clothes you are going to take your ball and go home...see ya...

 

[SSDD]

Your whole post is strawman or non-sequitur, or bluster. When you accuse me of saying or believing things that I have not mentioned, or believe, or are way outside of the topic, it seems that you have no argument left.

What's the matter...didn't know that pressure is work...didn't know that the pressure generated at the column of air moves the molecules closer together...you were the one who claimed that pressure was not work...when shown that it is, now it is a non sequitur? You really are a whiny baby aren't you?

You are obviously evading the well-known fact that molecules of a cold gas can strike a warm surface, which shows energy is two way and still follows the SLoT.

Molecules are not energy...and putting a cold molecule in contact with a warm surface does not constitute energy exchange beyond physical force which really has nothing to do with radiative energy transfer...I can push a toy truck around with an ice cube, but that doesn't mean that energy radiates simultaneously in two directions...it means that I can take a cold object...apply work...and use that cold object to move a warm object...

You are grasping at straws here...and it is f'ing pathetic.

 

[Wuwei]

Why lie...you have been looking frantically for it for some time now...wanting to slap me down with it...it doesn't exist because it doesn't happen.

I did not lie. I have no idea if a purposeful lab experiment was done for two-way net flow of radiation to a colder body. I doubt that has been done because it is too elementary and it is the only thing that makes sense physically to all scientists. The very first CMB discovery already demonstrated that in nature.

Which "well known" law of physics demands two way energy flow? More talking out of your ass without the least bit of evidence to support you. We have been through this before...you add words that aren't there and claim that the statement "means" this or that as if the people who wrote the law weren't intelligent enough to say what they mean... And again, why lie about two way energy flow being measured and observed...we both well know that it hasn't....

I told you several times the law that demands two-way flow: Both classical and quantum physics require that accelerating or vibrating charges must radiate. Furthermore the vibrating charges near the surface of a black body must radiate according to Planck's law and Lambert's Cosine Law which are well known and well tested. There are no restrictions in the laws of vibrating charges that prevent that radiation from doing anything differently if there is a colder body nearby.

 

[Wuwei]

What's the matter...didn't know that pressure is work...didn't know that the pressure generated at the column of air moves the molecules closer together...you were the one who claimed that pressure was not work...when shown that it is, now it is a non sequitur? You really are a whiny baby aren't you?

The physics definition of pressure is force per unit area.
That is NOT work.
You can't change the definition of a physics term.
The creation of higher pressure requires work.
A force moving through a distance is work.
Pressure moving a piston is work.
Pressure itself is not work.

Pressure and work are not physics laws. They come from age-old definitions.
You can verify all that by looking up the definitions.

Molecules are not energy...and putting a cold molecule in contact with a warm surface does not constitute energy exchange beyond physical force which really has nothing to do with radiative energy transfer...I can push a toy truck around with an ice cube, but that doesn't mean that energy radiates simultaneously in two directions...it means that I can take a cold object...apply work...and use that cold object to move a warm object...

My comment does not refer to global movement of an object such as a truck.
My comment has nothing to do with radiative energy.

It is about the random movement of the molecules of air near a non-moving warmer surface.

The random movement of molecules in a gas occur at any temperature. Those molecules have kinetic energy. That kinetic energy can spontaneously strike a warm surface. There is no work because the surface is assumed not to be moving, and the average kinetic energy of gas near the surface is zero.

The surface is warm. The gas is colder. The molecules of gas can strike the surface at great kinetic velocities.

That illustrates that thermal energy of a cold substance can move to a warmer substance.

That illustrates that since heat always moves from the warmer surface to the gas, there is a net energy exchange where the net flow of heat is from the surface to the gas.

This is taught in undergraduate courses of physics.

 

[SSDD]

I did not lie. I have no idea if a purposeful lab experiment was done for two-way net flow of radiation to a colder body. I doubt that has been done because it is too elementary and it is the only thing that makes sense physically to all scientists. The very first CMB discovery already demonstrated that in nature.

A lab experiment would not be necessary....we have instrumentation that is sensitive enough to measure minute energy movements....we don't measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm because it can't happen without applying work to make it happen...

And of course you lie...you have been scouring the internet looking for some actual evidence that spontaneous two way energy movement happens...

I told you several times the law that demands two-way flow: Both classical and quantum physics require that accelerating or vibrating charges must radiate. Furthermore the vibrating charges near the surface of a black body must radiate according to Planck's law and Lambert's Cosine Law which are well known and well tested. There are no restrictions in the laws of vibrating charges that prevent that radiation from doing anything differently if there is a colder body nearby.

And yet another lie. Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Tell me which part of NOT POSSIBLE FOR HEAT TO FLOW FROM A COLDER BODY TO A WARMER BODY or ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT says that two way flow is demanded?

You made the claim that "well known" laws of physics demand two way energy flow. That was a lie...or abject ignorance on your part...which one? We both know that there are no physical laws that demand any such thing...then you reference quantum physics as if it were a law...another blatant lie because even you aren't ignorant enough to think that quantum physics is a physical law.....are you?

Can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? I asked you before and you couldn't produce...yet another lie...And if the law is well tested, and demonstrates spontaneous two way energy flow, then there would be some physical evidence to support it and the math would clearly state two way energy flow...lets see it. The more you grasp the more pathetic you get.

 

[SSDD]

What's the matter...didn't know that pressure is work...didn't know that the pressure generated at the column of air moves the molecules closer together...you were the one who claimed that pressure was not work...when shown that it is, now it is a non sequitur? You really are a whiny baby aren't you?

The physics definition of pressure is force per unit area.

Really? At ground level the pressure due to the force provided by the column of air is 14 psi...The pressure due to the force provided by the column of air at 10,000 feet is 10psi....how is that different from say the pressure change in the combustion cylinder of a gas motor in any way other than the amount of pressure present? Is there some special provision in the physical law that states that pressure exerted on a column of air by its own weight is somehow different from pressure exerted on air by a piston?

The work energy theorem states that the total work done on a system is equal to the system's change in kinetic energy. Are you claiming that the kinetic energy of the atmosphere is the same in the upper atmosphere as it is in the lower atmosphere? That pressure isn't changing the kinetic energy as you descend in the column of air?

If the kinetic energy is increased, then work has been done upon it...if you are claiming that the kinetic energy does not change from the upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere, then I suppose you are going to have to support that claim with some actual evidence which we both know that you can't produce...

You can't change the definition of a physics term.

I'm not trying to change anything...alas it is you who is trying to change the terms... again, the work energy theorem states that the total work done on a system is equal to the system's change in kinetic energy....if the amount of kinetic energy changes from the upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere, then work has been done on the system...it is as simple as that....you are trying to exempt some pressure changes and some forces while allowing others. That is an attempt to change the definition of a physics term and alas, you are the one who is guilty...not me.
The creation of higher pressure requires work.
A force moving through a distance is work.
Pressure moving a piston is work.
Pressure itself is not work.

Pressure and work are not physics laws. They come from age-old definitions.

How does it feel to be reduced to such weak mewling argument? You don't think physical laws apply to work? You don't think physics defines work.

My comment does not refer to global movement of an object such as a truck.
My comment has nothing to do with radiative energy.

Right..now your are trying to argue for back conduction since your attempt at arguing for back radiation failed.

At this point you are just ranting...expressing your frustration at not being able to demonstrate what you believe in any real way in the only way you can..Such is the nature of arguing your faith against observation and measurement.

And by the way...highlighting the word net...bolding the word net....even adding color and size to the word net does not make it true...observation and measurement of net would make it true...got any observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement? Didn't think so. You are getting wacky as thunder what's his name thinking that if he could just print big enough and bold enough that he could make his beliefs true.

 

[Crick]

I've just got a few quick questions for you. The differing pressures at differing altitudes aren't being applied to the same chunk of air, are they. So what is it you believe pressure is working ON? And work requires that the matter receiving the work be moving. Did the air at 10,000 feet shoot down to the surface? No? Then no work. Additionally, the force involved in producing work has to be acting in the same direction as the movement. But aerostatic and hydrostatic pressure operates in all directions.

God, are you STOOOOOOOOOOPid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I did not lie. I have no idea if a purposeful lab experiment was done for two-way net flow of radiation to a colder body. I doubt that has been done because it is too elementary and it is the only thing that makes sense physically to all scientists. The very first CMB discovery already demonstrated that in nature.

A lab experiment would not be necessary....we have instrumentation that is sensitive enough to measure minute energy movements....we don't measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm because it can't happen without applying work to make it happen...

And of course you lie...you have been scouring the internet looking for some actual evidence that spontaneous two way energy movement happens...

I told you several times the law that demands two-way flow: Both classical and quantum physics require that accelerating or vibrating charges must radiate. Furthermore the vibrating charges near the surface of a black body must radiate according to Planck's law and Lambert's Cosine Law which are well known and well tested. There are no restrictions in the laws of vibrating charges that prevent that radiation from doing anything differently if there is a colder body nearby.

And yet another lie. Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Tell me which part of NOT POSSIBLE FOR HEAT TO FLOW FROM A COLDER BODY TO A WARMER BODY or ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT says that two way flow is demanded?

You made the claim that "well known" laws of physics demand two way energy flow. That was a lie...or abject ignorance on your part...which one? We both know that there are no physical laws that demand any such thing...then you reference quantum physics as if it were a law...another blatant lie because even you aren't ignorant enough to think that quantum physics is a physical law.....are you?

Can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? I asked you before and you couldn't produce...yet another lie...And if the law is well tested, and demonstrates spontaneous two way energy flow, then there would be some physical evidence to support it and the math would clearly state two way energy flow...lets see it. The more you grasp the more pathetic you get.

....we don't measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm because it can't happen without applying work to make it happen...

When it's -10C outside, I heat my home to 21C, courtesy of work done by my local utility company.
That work causes the walls of my home to heat up to 21C.
The walls of my home can now radiate toward my 37C body because work was done. Right?

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Just like this 1963 article mentioned..........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've just got a few quick questions for you. The differing pressures at differing altitudes aren't being applied to the same chunk of air, are they. So what is it you believe pressure is working ON? And work requires that the matter receiving the work be moving. Did the air at 10,000 feet shoot down to the surface? No? Then no work. Additionally, the force involved in producing work has to be acting in the same direction as the movement. But aerostatic and hydrostatic pressure operates in all directions.

God, are you STOOOOOOOOOOPid.

So what is it you believe pressure is working ON?

Come on Crick.
Haven't you ever tossed an empty soda can out your back door?
When we were kids we had hours of fun, watching the air pressure
crushing those cans flat.
I still miss my 3rd grade friend, Paul.

We pushed him out of the house, the pressure killed him instantly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fusion isn't occurring in gas at the surface.

something on fire is on fire based on work.

You think the Sun's fusion is like fire?

Dude!

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?

the sun is full of energy radiating from it's core.

Excellent!! You got one right.
But SSDD said that absorbing and radiating isn't work.
Was he wrong?

yep! fire is energy and the heat source radiates out from it's core.

Fire does release energy, but there is no fire at the Sun's core.
Or on the Sun's surface either.

then how does it produce solar flares?

Still researching solar flares?

 

[jc456]

something on fire is on fire based on work.

You think the Sun's fusion is like fire?

Dude!

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?

the sun is full of energy radiating from it's core.

Excellent!! You got one right.
But SSDD said that absorbing and radiating isn't work.
Was he wrong?

yep! fire is energy and the heat source radiates out from it's core.

Fire does release energy, but there is no fire at the Sun's core.
Or on the Sun's surface either.

then how does it produce solar flares?

Still researching solar flares?

nope

 

[jc456]

I've just got a few quick questions for you. The differing pressures at differing altitudes aren't being applied to the same chunk of air, are they. So what is it you believe pressure is working ON? And work requires that the matter receiving the work be moving. Did the air at 10,000 feet shoot down to the surface? No? Then no work. Additionally, the force involved in producing work has to be acting in the same direction as the movement. But aerostatic and hydrostatic pressure operates in all directions.

God, are you STOOOOOOOOOOPid.

So what is it you believe pressure is working ON?

Come on Crick.
Haven't you ever tossed an empty soda can out your back door?
When we were kids we had hours of fun, watching the air pressure
crushing those cans flat.
I still miss my 3rd grade friend, Paul.

We pushed him out of the house, the pressure killed him instantly.

put him in an air plane 30k in the air with no pressurized cabin and let's see how long he lives.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've just got a few quick questions for you. The differing pressures at differing altitudes aren't being applied to the same chunk of air, are they. So what is it you believe pressure is working ON? And work requires that the matter receiving the work be moving. Did the air at 10,000 feet shoot down to the surface? No? Then no work. Additionally, the force involved in producing work has to be acting in the same direction as the movement. But aerostatic and hydrostatic pressure operates in all directions.

God, are you STOOOOOOOOOOPid.

So what is it you believe pressure is working ON?

Come on Crick.
Haven't you ever tossed an empty soda can out your back door?
When we were kids we had hours of fun, watching the air pressure
crushing those cans flat.
I still miss my 3rd grade friend, Paul.

We pushed him out of the house, the pressure killed him instantly.

put him in an air plane 30k in the air with no pressurized cabin and let's see how long he lives.

He's already smushed.

 

[jc456]

I've just got a few quick questions for you. The differing pressures at differing altitudes aren't being applied to the same chunk of air, are they. So what is it you believe pressure is working ON? And work requires that the matter receiving the work be moving. Did the air at 10,000 feet shoot down to the surface? No? Then no work. Additionally, the force involved in producing work has to be acting in the same direction as the movement. But aerostatic and hydrostatic pressure operates in all directions.

God, are you STOOOOOOOOOOPid.

So what is it you believe pressure is working ON?

Come on Crick.
Haven't you ever tossed an empty soda can out your back door?
When we were kids we had hours of fun, watching the air pressure
crushing those cans flat.
I still miss my 3rd grade friend, Paul.

We pushed him out of the house, the pressure killed him instantly.

put him in an air plane 30k in the air with no pressurized cabin and let's see how long he lives.

He's already smushed.

Nope