Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

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

Nope. I and others already gave you the evidence many times.

And yet another lie. ...

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 are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying. That's just like you. Read the hyperphysics site again to answer your question. I already told you many many times.

You made the claim that "well known" laws of physics demand two way energy flow. That was a lie...

You are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying about quantum mechanics. I already answered that several times.

Can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? I asked you before and you couldn't produce...yet another lie...

Plank's law shows all objects emit. Kirchhoff's law shows the properties of the simultaneous absorption.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation can be stated: For any material at all, radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium at any given temperature....​

the math would clearly state two way energy flow...lets see it.

I stated that many many times. Read the derivation of the SB law again.

You are going in circles, pretending to not remember any previous posts, and calling all scientists for the last 100 years liars. Who should we believe.

 

[Wuwei]

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... etc etc.

Again your post is full of strawmen and non-sequiturs. Your main thrust is quoting some physics incorrectly, and some correctly, but applying it totally wrong.

Again, look up the definition of pressure. Google “pressure definition physics”. You are confusing the definition of pressure with specific examples involving pressure.

Also reread Crick's post.

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.

 

[SSDD]

Nope. I and others already gave you the evidence many times.

Yet another lie...since no such evidence exists.

You are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying. That's just like you. Read the hyperphysics site again to answer your question. I already told you many many times.

Hyperphysics states the actual law, then adds their opinion...nothing more since there is no actual evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow....so you lied there...then it is a lie to claim that the entire body of scientists for the past 100 years has been on the quantum wagon...it isn't even honest to say that the entire body of scientists today is on the quantum wagon...

You are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying about quantum mechanics. I already answered that several times.

Yet another lie...you don't seem to be able to get through a single sentence without lying...you are just a regular bald faced liar aren't you?

Plank's law shows all objects emit. Kirchhoff's law shows the properties of the simultaneous absorption.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation can be stated: For any material at all, radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium at any given temperature....​

Planck's law speaks to a hypothetical black body radiating in a vacuum...show me the two way energy flow in that...​

I stated that many many times. Read the derivation of the SB law again.

You mean that fake, bastardized version that uses the SB constant twice and doesn't assume, as SB did that T>Tc? That fake one you bandy about in an effort to convince people of back radiation where none exists?

are going in circles, pretending to not remember any previous posts, and calling all scientists for the last 100 years liars. Who should we believe.

Circles yes...you keep making the same old claims that you can't back up..wishing you had evidence but alas, don't have any. Logical fallacy and lies are your stock in trade. Must be frustrating to have such faith and then encounter someone who doesn't have the same faith.

 

[SSDD]

Again your post is full of strawmen and non-sequiturs. Your main thrust is quoting some physics incorrectly, and some correctly, but applying it totally wrong./wuote]

Really? Can you point to some dispensation that excludes the fact that the pressure at the bottom of a column of air is greater than the pressure at the top of that column of air...and that the kinetic energy is greater at the bottom of that column of air than it is at the top? Where in physics does it state that in the case of the atmosphere, no work is being performed even though it meets all the criteria of work?

Also reread Crick's post.

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.

Crick is as big an idiot as you...I suppose crick thinks that you could be walking along at sea level and encounter different pressures as if the atmosphere were divided up into nice even bits like a bundle of drinking straws... And as to what I believe the pressure is working on...it is clear that the pressure is working on air molecules as there is more kinetic energy at sea level than there is in the upper atmosphere...again, the work energy theorem states that the change in kinetic energy is equal to the work applied to the system...again...want to point out where the atmosphere is exempted form the work energy theorem?

Further, I suppose that crick thinks that the molecules of the air are static..unmoving entities...I suppose he thinks that the molecules at the surface are the same distance apart as they are in the upper atmosphere...therefore they are not moved closer together...

Again...crick is an idiot, and since you clearly agree with his idiocy, you place yourself in the same boat. Congratulations.

 

[Crick]

For starters, I know how to work quotes.

Brownian motion sums to no net motion. I know "net" is a really, really, really difficult topic for you, but try to persist. Without motion, there is no work.

The differences of pressure on DIFFERENT air molecules do not produce work.

I think the odds favor that you know almost precisely what lunacy you're arguing here and you're just doing it for the troll.

 

[Wuwei]

Nope. I and others already gave you the evidence many times.

Yet another lie...since no such evidence exists.

You are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying. That's just like you. Read the hyperphysics site again to answer your question. I already told you many many times.

Hyperphysics states the actual law, then adds their opinion...nothing more since there is no actual evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow....so you lied there...then it is a lie to claim that the entire body of scientists for the past 100 years has been on the quantum wagon...it isn't even honest to say that the entire body of scientists today is on the quantum wagon...

You are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying about quantum mechanics. I already answered that several times.

Yet another lie...you don't seem to be able to get through a single sentence without lying...you are just a regular bald faced liar aren't you?

Plank's law shows all objects emit. Kirchhoff's law shows the properties of the simultaneous absorption.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation can be stated: For any material at all, radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium at any given temperature....​

Planck's law speaks to a hypothetical black body radiating in a vacuum...show me the two way energy flow in that...​

I stated that many many times. Read the derivation of the SB law again.

You mean that fake, bastardized version that uses the SB constant twice and doesn't assume, as SB did that T>Tc? That fake one you bandy about in an effort to convince people of back radiation where none exists?

are going in circles, pretending to not remember any previous posts, and calling all scientists for the last 100 years liars. Who should we believe.

Circles yes...you keep making the same old claims that you can't back up..wishing you had evidence but alas, don't have any. Logical fallacy and lies are your stock in trade. Must be frustrating to have such faith and then encounter someone who doesn't have the same faith.

You are bitterly lashing out calling everyone, including scientists, liars and you say scientists are only expressing opinion. You have not covered any insight to any physics concepts in this and the last few posts.

If you can control your anger, we would still like to hear you explain the physics behind why you think thermal photons cannot hit a colder body. All laws of physics such as the SLOT and SB, and others have deeper explanations such as the concept of entropy, statistical mechanics, classical, and quantum mechanics, that underlie those laws. These deeper concepts are able to derive the laws that come from observation. But you cling only to the surface English statements of laws or simple formulae and dismiss deeper principles and models that all scientists understand and rely on.

Please stick to the physics, and try to avoid the rage.

 

[SSDD]

For starters, I know how to work quotes.

Brownian motion sums to no net motion. I know "net" is a really, really, really difficult topic for you, but try to persist. Without motion, there is no work.

The differences of pressure on DIFFERENT air molecules do not produce work.

I think the odds favor that you know almost precisely what lunacy you're arguing here and you're just doing it for the troll.

Unfortunate that this is all so far beyond you skidmark...Are you making the claim that there is the same amount of kinetic energy at the top of the atmosphere as there is at the bottom? Is that what you are saying....because if you are, then I would like to see some evidence of it...and if you are acknowledging that there is more kinetic energy at the bottom of the atmosphere, then the difference between the kinetic energy at the top of the atmosphere and at the bottom of the atmosphere is equal to the work that has been performed on it according to the work energy theorem.

 

[SSDD]

You are bitterly lashing out calling everyone, including scientists, liars and you say scientists are only expressing opinion. You have not covered any insight to any physics concepts in this and the last few posts.

I am asking for actual evidence of what you claim is happening...if you can't provide it then you have taken a leap of faith...you are operating from a position of what you believe without any actual evidence to support it... You are a believer.

If you can control your anger, we would still like to hear you explain the physics behind why you think thermal photons cannot hit a colder body. All laws of physics such as the SLOT and SB, and others have deeper explanations such as the concept of entropy, statistical mechanics, classical, and quantum mechanics, that underlie those laws. These deeper concepts are able to derive the laws that come from observation. But you cling only to the surface English statements of laws or simple formulae and dismiss deeper principles and models that all scientists understand and rely on.

Please stick to the physics, and try to avoid the rage.

So now are you saying that putting cold gas into contact with a warmer surface is a transfer of thermal photons?

As to how or why energy does not and can not move from cold to warm...I have no idea...neither does "science" the mechanisms of energy transfer are a mystery to us... The fact that I can't say how or why doesn't invalidate my position any more than the fact that we can't say how or why in regards to gravity would invalidate a position that gravity is real. You keep posting up unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models as if they were reality.

Tell me, are you able to differentiate between what is real..and what is not...Is the coyote on the buggy bunny road runner hour real? How about the easter bunny? The tooth fairy? H20? Concrete? Leprechauns? Particle board? Santa Clause? How did you do?

Now here is the final exam...is the output of a model which can not be observed, measured, or tested real? Or is it a story we use to fill-in blanks in our knowledge till such time as we can actually observe, measure, and test what is actually happening? Think real hard...you can do it.

 

[Wuwei]

I am asking for actual evidence of what you claim is happening...if you can't provide it then you have taken a leap of faith...you are operating from a position of what you believe without any actual evidence to support it... You are a believer.

You are totally wrong in the way you even think about science. Science has well established the model for thermodynamics for one hundred years. Your ideas are violating those models. Your ideas violate the physics of the vibration of charged particles in radiating EM energy. Tod has aptly given the name of your folly “smart photons”. When you or anyone radically deviates from the current physics models that person is obligated to tell the rest of the science community the why's and how's of that deviation. If a person on this board cannot do that and still insists he is correct, then that person is a troll.

As to how or why energy does not and can not move from cold to warm...I have no idea...neither does "science" the mechanisms of energy transfer are a mystery to us... The fact that I can't say how or why doesn't invalidate my position any more than the fact that we can't say how or why in regards to gravity would invalidate a position that gravity is real. You keep posting up unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models as if they were reality

....is the output of a model which can not be observed, measured, or tested real? Or is it a story we use to fill-in blanks in our knowledge till such time as we can actually observe, measure, and test what is actually happening?

As you just said you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The mathematical models of science is no mystery to scientists. It is only a mystery to you. You have time and again proved that you have no capability of understanding those mathematical abstractions.

Reality? You sorely lack the ability to understand the abstractions of reality. Where is your evidence that science is wrong?

 

[Crick]

For starters, I know how to work quotes.

Brownian motion sums to no net motion. I know "net" is a really, really, really difficult topic for you, but try to persist. Without motion, there is no work.

The differences of pressure on DIFFERENT air molecules do not produce work.

I think the odds favor that you know almost precisely what lunacy you're arguing here and you're just doing it for the troll.

Unfortunate that this is all so far beyond you skidmark...Are you making the claim that there is the same amount of kinetic energy at the top of the atmosphere as there is at the bottom? Is that what you are saying....because if you are, then I would like to see some evidence of it...and if you are acknowledging that there is more kinetic energy at the bottom of the atmosphere, then the difference between the kinetic energy at the top of the atmosphere and at the bottom of the atmosphere is equal to the work that has been performed on it according to the work energy theorem.

There is more kinetic energy in my car going down the interstate than there is in my wife's car pulling through a crowded parking lot. The distinction, however, produces no work.

You are SO fucking stupid.

 

[Crick]

the difference between the kinetic energy at the top of the atmosphere and at the bottom of the atmosphere is equal to the work that has been performed on it according to the work energy theorem.

Please tell us what it is

I'd also like to see a link to what you believe the "work energy theorem" to be. Or a clear explanation of your beliefs including a formula to calculate work.

 

[SSDD]

You are totally wrong in the way you even think about science. Science has well established the model for thermodynamics for one hundred years. Your ideas are violating those models. Your ideas violate the physics of the vibration of charged particles in radiating EM energy. Tod has aptly given the name of your folly “smart photons”. When you or anyone radically deviates from the current physics models that person is obligated to tell the rest of the science community the why's and how's of that deviation. If a person on this board cannot do that and still insists he is correct, then that person is a troll.

So the answer is no..you can't provide even the first piece of real observed, measured evidence in support of your belief in spontaneous two way energy flow....You finally acknowledge that what you have is a model and nothing more...and it just pisses you off that what I see is not beautiful new clothes draped over the emperor but his pimply old ass hanging out. Old rocks calls it smart photons because it looks like magic to him and the rest of you fall in line believing that in order for energy to obey the laws of physics, said energy must be smart...

As you just said you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The mathematical models of science is no mystery to scientists. It is only a mystery to you. You have time and again proved that you have no capability of understanding those mathematical abstractions.

And yet more lies...have you always been such a liar, or are you lying out of the frustration of trying to convert someone to your belief who keeps asking for evidence. I said that science has little knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of radiative energy exchange...And a model is no mystery to anyone...but let me reiterate...a model is not reality...you can know a model as intimately as you like, but until such time as reality bears it out in the form of observation and measurement, it is just a model...know the model as well as you like...reality remains a mystery.

And on the contrary...I understand mathematical abstractions far better than you. Even when you call them what they are, you fail to understand what you have said. I understand them well enough to know that they are not reality...they are stories...they are place holders that do nothing more than fill in the gaps in our knowledge. You, on the other hand believe they are real....you believe that they are as real as linear measurement of distance. A gross intellectual failing on your part and the very reason you are so frustrated that you can't make me see them in terms as real as you see them...you fail to grasp that I am the one seeing them as they are...models...fabrications...stand in's for reality...

Reality? You sorely lack the ability to understand the abstractions of reality. Where is your evidence that science is wrong?

I don't think you actually grasp the meaning of reality. Reality is the state of things as they are...as they are observed...as they are measured as contrasted by the way one may wish them to be. You wish there were actual measurements and observations of two way energy flow..but alas, there are not...what you wish is not reality...

Where is my evidence that science is wrong? Again, you fail to grasp the far more important question...where is your evidence that science is right. Science is, after all supposed to be a systematic study of the physical world through experiment, observation, and measurement. Now you have a field of study which is defined by observation measurement which holds forth a thing as real to which they have neither observation or measurement? I am asking for evidence in support of what I am being asked to believe... Why aren't you? If you don't answer any other question I have asked, I would like an answer to that one...why do you believe without any actual evidence when science is defined by its ability to produce and provide evidence?

 

[SSDD]

There is more kinetic energy in my car going down the interstate than there is in my wife's car pulling through a crowded parking lot. The distinction, however, produces no work.

But the increased kinetic energy that results from either car moving is due to work. Any increase in kinetic energy within a system is the result of work being done on that system

You are SO fucking stupid.

Alas skidmark, it is you who is stupid...stupid and shallow.

 

[Crick]

The engine of my car does work on my car. The engine of my wife's car does work on her car. The difference between them - as the difference between air at the surface and air at altitude, does no fucking work you fool.

 

[SSDD]

the difference between the kinetic energy at the top of the atmosphere and at the bottom of the atmosphere is equal to the work that has been performed on it according to the work energy theorem.

Please tell us what it is

It is the molecules that make up the atmosphere...are you really that stupid...never mind...of course you are that stupid. By the way...still waiting for the actual evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...ready to admit that none exists and that once again you were just talking out of your ass?

I'd also like to see a link to what you believe the "work energy theorem" to be. Or a clear explanation of your beliefs including a formula to calculate work.

Go find your own link you lazy pile...since you clearly have never heard of the work energy theorem, I will be happy to once again tell you what it states...

The principle of work and kinetic energy (also known as the work-energy theorem) states that the work done by the sum of all forces acting on a particle equals the change in the kinetic energy of the particle. This definition can be extended to rigid bodies by defining the work of the torque and rotational kinetic energy.

 

[SSDD]

The engine of my car does work on my car. The engine of my wife's car does work on her car. The difference between them - as the difference between air at the surface and air at altitude, does no fucking work you fool.

So why is the kinetic energy in the atmosphere at ground level greater than the kinetic energy in the atmosphere at high altitudes? Why is there a temperature gradient in columns of static air if no work is being done to cause the increase in temperature as you go deeper in the column?

 

[Wuwei]

I said that science has little knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of radiative energy exchange...And a model is no mystery to anyone...but let me reiterate...a model is not reality...you can know a model as intimately as you like, but until such time as reality bears it out in the form of observation and measurement, it is just a model...know the model as well as you like...reality remains a mystery...I see is not beautiful new clothes draped over the emperor but his pimply old ass hanging out.

I see you are still alone lashing out with anger. I understand your frustration that you can't show any evidence that your smart-photons exist. Science has full knowledge of radiation, but you are unable to understand it. If you want to deny science, you really do need evidence to combat the entire body of physical science that disagrees with you.

Reality is the state of things as they are...as they are observed...as they are measured

Reality is something that is quite foreign to you. The only way to understand how nature works is through abstracting experimental observations in order to define consistent mathematical models. You don't understand that. Without the reality of mathematical models in physics, there would not exist many inventions in the past and future that have great importance in technology and everyday devices:

tunnel diodes
Josephson junctions
Global Positioning System
Lasers
High temperature superconductors
Quantum computing
Magnetic resonance imaging

 

[Crick]

The engine of my car does work on my car. The engine of my wife's car does work on her car. The difference between them - as the difference between air at the surface and air at altitude, does no fucking work you fool.

So why is the kinetic energy in the atmosphere at ground level greater than the kinetic energy in the atmosphere at high altitudes? Why is there a temperature gradient in columns of static air if no work is being done to cause the increase in temperature as you go deeper in the column?

Because they are two different groups of molecules at different locations with different conditions. Why is my car on the highway traveling faster than my wife's in the crowded parking lot? Because they are two different things at two different places. Work is something that is done by A force to A chunk of matter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are totally wrong in the way you even think about science. Science has well established the model for thermodynamics for one hundred years. Your ideas are violating those models. Your ideas violate the physics of the vibration of charged particles in radiating EM energy. Tod has aptly given the name of your folly “smart photons”. When you or anyone radically deviates from the current physics models that person is obligated to tell the rest of the science community the why's and how's of that deviation. If a person on this board cannot do that and still insists he is correct, then that person is a troll.

So the answer is no..you can't provide even the first piece of real observed, measured evidence in support of your belief in spontaneous two way energy flow....You finally acknowledge that what you have is a model and nothing more...and it just pisses you off that what I see is not beautiful new clothes draped over the emperor but his pimply old ass hanging out. Old rocks calls it smart photons because it looks like magic to him and the rest of you fall in line believing that in order for energy to obey the laws of physics, said energy must be smart...

As you just said you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The mathematical models of science is no mystery to scientists. It is only a mystery to you. You have time and again proved that you have no capability of understanding those mathematical abstractions.

And yet more lies...have you always been such a liar, or are you lying out of the frustration of trying to convert someone to your belief who keeps asking for evidence. I said that science has little knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of radiative energy exchange...And a model is no mystery to anyone...but let me reiterate...a model is not reality...you can know a model as intimately as you like, but until such time as reality bears it out in the form of observation and measurement, it is just a model...know the model as well as you like...reality remains a mystery.

And on the contrary...I understand mathematical abstractions far better than you. Even when you call them what they are, you fail to understand what you have said. I understand them well enough to know that they are not reality...they are stories...they are place holders that do nothing more than fill in the gaps in our knowledge. You, on the other hand believe they are real....you believe that they are as real as linear measurement of distance. A gross intellectual failing on your part and the very reason you are so frustrated that you can't make me see them in terms as real as you see them...you fail to grasp that I am the one seeing them as they are...models...fabrications...stand in's for reality...

Reality? You sorely lack the ability to understand the abstractions of reality. Where is your evidence that science is wrong?

I don't think you actually grasp the meaning of reality. Reality is the state of things as they are...as they are observed...as they are measured as contrasted by the way one may wish them to be. You wish there were actual measurements and observations of two way energy flow..but alas, there are not...what you wish is not reality...

Where is my evidence that science is wrong? Again, you fail to grasp the far more important question...where is your evidence that science is right. Science is, after all supposed to be a systematic study of the physical world through experiment, observation, and measurement. Now you have a field of study which is defined by observation measurement which holds forth a thing as real to which they have neither observation or measurement? I am asking for evidence in support of what I am being asked to believe... Why aren't you? If you don't answer any other question I have asked, I would like an answer to that one...why do you believe without any actual evidence when science is defined by its ability to produce and provide evidence?

So the answer is no..you can't provide even the first piece of real observed, measured evidence in support of your belief in spontaneous two way energy flow...

So the answer is no..you've never provided a single source that backs up your claim of one way energy flow...

Ever.

Weird.

Is this you on the piano?

 

[jc456]

Nope. I and others already gave you the evidence many times.

Yet another lie...since no such evidence exists.

You are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying. That's just like you. Read the hyperphysics site again to answer your question. I already told you many many times.

Hyperphysics states the actual law, then adds their opinion...nothing more since there is no actual evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow....so you lied there...then it is a lie to claim that the entire body of scientists for the past 100 years has been on the quantum wagon...it isn't even honest to say that the entire body of scientists today is on the quantum wagon...

You are saying the entire body of scientists for the last 100 years are lying about quantum mechanics. I already answered that several times.

Yet another lie...you don't seem to be able to get through a single sentence without lying...you are just a regular bald faced liar aren't you?

Plank's law shows all objects emit. Kirchhoff's law shows the properties of the simultaneous absorption.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation can be stated: For any material at all, radiating and absorbing in thermodynamic equilibrium at any given temperature....​

Planck's law speaks to a hypothetical black body radiating in a vacuum...show me the two way energy flow in that...​

I stated that many many times. Read the derivation of the SB law again.

You mean that fake, bastardized version that uses the SB constant twice and doesn't assume, as SB did that T>Tc? That fake one you bandy about in an effort to convince people of back radiation where none exists?

are going in circles, pretending to not remember any previous posts, and calling all scientists for the last 100 years liars. Who should we believe.

Circles yes...you keep making the same old claims that you can't back up..wishing you had evidence but alas, don't have any. Logical fallacy and lies are your stock in trade. Must be frustrating to have such faith and then encounter someone who doesn't have the same faith.

You are bitterly lashing out calling everyone, including scientists, liars and you say scientists are only expressing opinion. You have not covered any insight to any physics concepts in this and the last few posts.

If you can control your anger, we would still like to hear you explain the physics behind why you think thermal photons cannot hit a colder body. All laws of physics such as the SLOT and SB, and others have deeper explanations such as the concept of entropy, statistical mechanics, classical, and quantum mechanics, that underlie those laws. These deeper concepts are able to derive the laws that come from observation. But you cling only to the surface English statements of laws or simple formulae and dismiss deeper principles and models that all scientists understand and rely on.

Please stick to the physics, and try to avoid the rage.

Still, you have not presented any evidence to back up any of your rant!