Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[jc456]

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

He isn’t alone! You lied

 

[jc456]

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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

 

[SSDD]

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.

More bullshit...but if you would like to prove me wrong, then kindly post a link to at least one published paper which describes the underlying mechanism of radiative energy transfer...and if you provide anything on the topic of vibration, then you will be doing nothing more than demonstrating that the idea of underlying mechanisms completely escapes you.

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:

So you believe that reality is not real and models represent the closest thing to reality? Try as much as you like...you are not going to ever be able to substitute reality for models...no mater how much you gnash your teeth, writhe in agony of frustration, or perform gold medal level mental gymnastics...you are not going to make models real...till such time as observation and measurement bear out the predictions they make, they are just stories....if you believe otherwise then you are well and truly divorced from reality.

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

All of the above may have started out as models, but observation, experiment, and measurement bore them out...now they are reality. Two way spontaneous energy transfer remains just a story.

 

[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?

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.

I see you don't understand work if you believe work can only be done on chunks...but then that isn't a surprise at all.

 

[SSDD]

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

Nor will he as there is none...it is nothing more than a story we use to fill in gaps in our knowledge. He is so removed from reality that he can't differentiate between stories and what is real.

 

[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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

We can show plenty of one way flow.

Awesome!
Show me.

 

[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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

 

[Wuwei]

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.

More bullshit...but if you would like to prove me wrong, then kindly post a link to at least one published paper which describes the underlying mechanism of radiative energy transfer...and if you provide anything on the topic of vibration, then you will be doing nothing more than demonstrating that the idea of underlying mechanisms completely escapes you.

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:

So you believe that reality is not real and models represent the closest thing to reality? Try as much as you like...you are not going to ever be able to substitute reality for models...no mater how much you gnash your teeth, writhe in agony of frustration, or perform gold medal level mental gymnastics...you are not going to make models real...till such time as observation and measurement bear out the predictions they make, they are just stories....if you believe otherwise then you are well and truly divorced from reality.

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

All of the above may have started out as models, but observation, experiment, and measurement bore them out...now they are reality. Two way spontaneous energy transfer remains just a story.

Understanding of the physical universe is not done by your concept of reality.

Vibrating charges are observed by experiment to emit radiation. No counterexamples were observed. In the same way heat is observed to spontaneously flow to colder objects. No counterexamples were observed. In that regard what is the difference in “reality” of heat flow and radiation from vibration. You accept one but not the other. Your concept of reality is just weird.

The only way humans have to handle reality is through mathematical models that codify and predict physical observations that happen in “reality”. There is no other way. If one ignores models in a quest for a more intrinsic non-mathematical understanding we find that our intuition is not able to grasp the subtle nuances, such as the four dimensions of space-time, the concept of simultaneity, or the superposition aspect of quantum mechanics. We would no longer be able to predict outcomes of many experiments. To dismiss the models in physics is to completely dismiss a full understanding. You can think what ever way you want, but that is not science, and won't explain any sort of definition of “reality”.

Your last paragraph is just your lonely weird opinion.

 

[jc456]

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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Great, now show and observation of a cold object emitting

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Imagine that... A mathematical construct and model... On how you think it works. Never observed only theorized..

This is the kind of crap that kills me. The second law was derived from physical observation. A 400deg plate of steel gets water placed on it, the water in contact absorbs energy, changes states to steam(vapor), rises and cools then renucliates to water again after the energy is released. One way energy flow! the steels mass vs water mass of lower temp dictates the rate of cooling until they are the same temperature.

I can find no observation that proves your theory.

 

[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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Great, now show and observation of a cold object emitting

^
Cold atmosphere emitting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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...

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...

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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Great, now show and observation of a cold object emitting

^
Cold atmosphere emitting.

Link to your source, please....

370w/m^2 can happen only with solar downwelinng radiation..

 

[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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Imagine that... A mathematical construct and model... On how you think it works. Never observed only theorized..

This is the kind of crap that kills me. The second law was derived from physical observation. A 400deg plate of steel gets water placed on it, the water in contact absorbs energy, changes states to steam(vapor), rises and cools then renucliates to water again after the energy is released. One way energy flow! the steels mass vs water mass of lower temp dictates the rate of cooling until they are the same temperature.

I can find no observation that proves your theory.

Imagine that... A mathematical construct and model... On how you think it works.

Me? That's Caltech. You have any Caltech models that show one way flow only?

Never observed only theorized..

Equilibrium has never been observed?

This is the kind of crap that kills me.

Yeah, math and science. We noticed.

rises and cools then renucliates to water again

Renucliates? Do you imagine your made-up words make you sound less stupid?
If you say "condenses", everyone would understand what you're trying to get across.
You'll still be wrong, but at least you'll be understood.

One way energy flow!

Why are you bringing conduction into a discussion about radiation?

I can find no observation that proves your theory.

My theory that matter above 0K radiates all the time, in all directions with no restrictions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Great, now show and observation of a cold object emitting

^
Cold atmosphere emitting.

Link to your source, please....

370w/m^2 can happen only with solar downwelinng radiation..

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

You may have noticed that radiation is measured the entire period, even at night.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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...

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...

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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Imagine that... A mathematical construct and model... On how you think it works. Never observed only theorized..

This is the kind of crap that kills me. The second law was derived from physical observation. A 400deg plate of steel gets water placed on it, the water in contact absorbs energy, changes states to steam(vapor), rises and cools then renucliates to water again after the energy is released. One way energy flow! the steels mass vs water mass of lower temp dictates the rate of cooling until they are the same temperature.

I can find no observation that proves your theory.

Imagine that... A mathematical construct and model... On how you think it works.

Me? That's Caltech. You have any Caltech models that show one way flow only?

Never observed only theorized..

Equilibrium has never been observed?

This is the kind of crap that kills me.

Yeah, math and science. We noticed.

rises and cools then renucliates to water again

Renucliates? Do you imagine your made-up words make you sound less stupid?
If you say "condenses", everyone would understand what you're trying to get across.
You'll still be wrong, but at least you'll be understood.

One way energy flow!

Why are you bringing conduction into a discussion about radiation?

I can find no observation that proves your theory.

My theory that matter above 0K radiates all the time, in all directions with no restrictions?

Again, your using homoginization and modeling.. NO OBSERVATION.

I understand you guys wanting to explain what is happening inside a mass, but you can at least be truthful about what has empirical evidence and what does not.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Great, now show and observation of a cold object emitting

^
Cold atmosphere emitting.

Link to your source, please....

370w/m^2 can happen only with solar downwelinng radiation..

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

You may have noticed that radiation is measured the entire period, even at night.

« The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”

"You can see some more background about absorption and emission in CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part Two.

A quick summary of some basics here – each gas in the atmosphere has properties of absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation – and each gas is different. These are properties which have been thoroughly studied in the lab, and in the atmosphere. When a photon interacts with a gas molecule it will be absorbed only if the amount of energy in the photon is a specific amount – the right quantum of energy to change the state of that molecule – to make it vibrate or rotate, or a combination of these.

The amount of energy in a photon is dependent on itswavelength.

This post won’t be about quantum mechanics so we’ll leave the explanation of why all this absorption happens in such different ways for N2 vs water vapor (for example) and concentrate on a few simple measurements."

You laughed at me when I tried to explain why molecules can or can not absorb photon energy and your own post blows away your "smart photon" jab as real and explainable..


Now back to your claim of back-radiation.. Your graph is of the full spectrum and not just the portions which can affect temperature of the atmosphere. So the graph itself is deceptive about what it shows but accurate for the location. The receptor is a cooled receiver below -80deg C. This means the majority of the energy being radiated back to a warmer earth is having no effect and cant as its thermal temperature (derived by its wave length) can have no effect on a warmer object. THIS IS WHY I INCLUDED THE INFORMATION FROM YOUR LINK ABOVE SHOWING YOU WHY IT CANT.

Its well known that the atmosphere slows energy release. How that happens is still not well understood. What we do now know is, we still cant model it correctly as model outputs do not mirror empirical observations.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Imagine that... A mathematical construct and model... On how you think it works. Never observed only theorized..

This is the kind of crap that kills me. The second law was derived from physical observation. A 400deg plate of steel gets water placed on it, the water in contact absorbs energy, changes states to steam(vapor), rises and cools then renucliates to water again after the energy is released. One way energy flow! the steels mass vs water mass of lower temp dictates the rate of cooling until they are the same temperature.

I can find no observation that proves your theory.

They get badly stuck on the NET flow gambit while the Second Law only states ONE WAY flow.......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Great, now show and observation of a cold object emitting

^
Cold atmosphere emitting.

Link to your source, please....

370w/m^2 can happen only with solar downwelinng radiation..

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

You may have noticed that radiation is measured the entire period, even at night.

« The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”

"You can see some more background about absorption and emission in CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part Two.

A quick summary of some basics here – each gas in the atmosphere has properties of absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation – and each gas is different. These are properties which have been thoroughly studied in the lab, and in the atmosphere. When a photon interacts with a gas molecule it will be absorbed only if the amount of energy in the photon is a specific amount – the right quantum of energy to change the state of that molecule – to make it vibrate or rotate, or a combination of these.

The amount of energy in a photon is dependent on itswavelength.

This post won’t be about quantum mechanics so we’ll leave the explanation of why all this absorption happens in such different ways for N2 vs water vapor (for example) and concentrate on a few simple measurements."

You laughed at me when I tried to explain why molecules can or can not absorb photon energy and your own post blows away your "smart photon" jab as real and explainable..


Now back to your claim of back-radiation.. Your graph is of the full spectrum and not just the portions which can affect temperature of the atmosphere. So the graph itself is deceptive about what it shows but accurate for the location. The receptor is a cooled receiver below -80deg C. This means the majority of the energy being radiated back to a warmer earth is having no effect and cant as its thermal temperature (derived by its wave length) can have no effect on a warmer object. THIS IS WHY I INCLUDED THE INFORMATION FROM YOUR LINK ABOVE SHOWING YOU WHY IT CANT.

Its well known that the atmosphere slows energy release. How that happens is still not well understood. What we do now know is, we still cant model it correctly as model outputs do not mirror empirical observations.

You laughed at me when I tried to explain why molecules can or can not absorb photon energy and your own post blows away your "smart photon" jab as real and explainable..

Remind me....was that your "covailent bonds repel cooler photons" explanation?

Your graph is of the full spectrum and not just the portions which can affect temperature of the atmosphere.

Full spectrum? It says LWIR. Do you think that means full spectrum?

The receptor is a cooled receiver below -80deg C.

Prove it.

This means the majority of the energy being radiated back to a warmer earth is having no effect

Does SSDD know you're disagreeing with him?

THIS IS WHY I INCLUDED THE INFORMATION FROM YOUR LINK ABOVE SHOWING YOU WHY IT CANT.

You think anything you posted means back radiation isn't absorbed by the surface?

​

Its well known that the atmosphere slows energy release. How that happens is still not well understood.​

What don't you understand about IR being absorbed by GHGs?
What don't you understand about GHGs re-emitting IR?
What don't you understand about GHGs transferring that energy thru collisions with N2 or O2?​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

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...

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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Imagine that... A mathematical construct and model... On how you think it works. Never observed only theorized..

This is the kind of crap that kills me. The second law was derived from physical observation. A 400deg plate of steel gets water placed on it, the water in contact absorbs energy, changes states to steam(vapor), rises and cools then renucliates to water again after the energy is released. One way energy flow! the steels mass vs water mass of lower temp dictates the rate of cooling until they are the same temperature.

I can find no observation that proves your theory.

They get badly stuck on the NET flow gambit while the Second Law only states ONE WAY flow.......

Second Law doesn't say anything about radiation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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...

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...

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?

The mere fact you can’t provide evidence of two way energy flow is his and my proof! We can show plenty of one way flow. Why can’t you provide two way evidence? None exists. Otherwise you’d have presented it to prove your point!

View attachment 190445

How Does Heat Travel?

Wow! Can you believe it?

All objects absorb and emit radiation. ( Here is a java applet showing how an atom absorbs and emits radiation) When the absorption of energy balances the emission of energy, the temperature of an object stays constant. If the absorption of energy is greater than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object rises. If the absorption of energy is less than the emission of energy, the temperature of an object falls.


Absorption and emission.....at the same time!!!

Imagine that... A mathematical construct and model... On how you think it works. Never observed only theorized..

This is the kind of crap that kills me. The second law was derived from physical observation. A 400deg plate of steel gets water placed on it, the water in contact absorbs energy, changes states to steam(vapor), rises and cools then renucliates to water again after the energy is released. One way energy flow! the steels mass vs water mass of lower temp dictates the rate of cooling until they are the same temperature.

I can find no observation that proves your theory.

They get badly stuck on the NET flow gambit while the Second Law only states ONE WAY flow.......

about 99% of the one way flow can be explained by photon rejection due to molecular state and incompatible wavelengths.