Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Billy_Bob]

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?​

I refuse to run in circles around your circular logic fail. You fail to understand the internal molecular dynamics and i'm not going to rehash it for you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

^
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?​

I refuse to run in circles around your circular logic fail. You fail to understand the internal molecular dynamics and i'm not going to rehash it for you.

I refuse to run in circles around your circular logic fail.

Is my fail.....mocking your "covailent bonds repel photons" claim?

i'm not going to rehash it for you.​

Aww....come on. It was so funny!​

 

[SSDD]

Vibrating charges are observed by experiment to emit radiation. No counterexamples were observed.

OK...so how, precisely does a vibration make the transition from vibration to radiation? What mechanism causes and governs that process...and precisely why does some electromagnetic radiation behave as both wave and particle...what is the mechanism that causes that phenomenon to appear in different circumstances?

Your last paragraph is just your lonely weird opinion.

I enjoy watching the psychology at work in your head...when you can't provide evidence to support your belief...you provide more belief, and then engage in some ad hominem attack as if that would make your belief real. Textbook.

 

[SSDD]

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.

What was the instrument that data was made with? Was it a pyrogeometer? If so, then all it was measuring was the temperature changes of its own internal thermopile....was it a cooled instrument capable of measuring discrete frequencies of radiation? If so, then all you that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...turn off the cooling and downwelling radiation can no longer be recorded.

Fooled by instrumentation once again...in this case it isn't even instrumentation..you were fooled simply by a graph that doesn't give you any information about how the data was gathered. It says what you want so you run with it.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Ofr course it does...is radiation energy? The second law speaks to all forms of energy whether it be that stored in a body of water behind a dam, light waves, sound waves, radiation...all of it...if it is energy, then the second law is talking about it...very interesting that you wouldn't know this since it is very basic stuff...

 

[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.

What was the instrument that data was made with? Was it a pyrogeometer? If so, then all it was measuring was the temperature changes of its own internal thermopile....was it a cooled instrument capable of measuring discrete frequencies of radiation? If so, then all you that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...turn off the cooling and downwelling radiation can no longer be recorded.

Fooled by instrumentation once again...in this case it isn't even instrumentation..you were fooled simply by a graph that doesn't give you any information about how the data was gathered. It says what you want so you run with it.

What was the instrument that data was made with?

Was it a smart photon detector?

If so, then all it was measuring was the temperature changes of its own internal thermopile....

Well, when you combine incoming radiation to the detector with outgoing radiation from the detector, you
get the net energy flow.

If so, then all you that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument..

Yup, net energy.

turn off the cooling and downwelling radiation can no longer be recorded.

And yet, radiation is still hitting the receiver.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Ofr course it does...is radiation energy? The second law speaks to all forms of energy whether it be that stored in a body of water behind a dam, light waves, sound waves, radiation...all of it...if it is energy, then the second law is talking about it...very interesting that you wouldn't know this since it is very basic stuff...

Ofr course it does...is radiation energy?

Radiation wasn't even discovered when the 2nd Law was written.

Why don't you post a couple of sources that agree with your "radiation only flows one way" claim?

It's weird that we've seen plenty of posts that say radiation flows both ways, at the same time, but none
that say one way. It's almost as if there are no sources that agree with you.

Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

OK...so how, precisely does a vibration make the transition from vibration to radiation? What mechanism causes and governs that process...and precisely why does some electromagnetic radiation behave as both wave and particle...what is the mechanism that causes that phenomenon to appear in different circumstances?

That is a fair enough question. This is the short answer.

Four different experimental laws involving electricity and magnetism were discovered by four different scientists. Maxwell consolidated the four experimental laws into what's now called Maxwell's equations. The equations show that vibrating charges emit waves.

This new prediction lead to many experiments. Hertz was the first to test radio frequency transmission to verify Maxwell's equations. Through many experiments and observations it was later concluded that these waves were also the basis of light, Xrays, infrared, etc.

The wave nature of light was well-known for centuries: At high light levels, experiments observed diffraction. The particle nature became more apparent about 100 years ago. At very low light levels the light came in “chunks”. Einstein first explained the chunkiness as separate particles and got the Nobel Prize for the “Photoelectric Effect”.

The nature of EM radiation came from experiments that defied intuition and were a puzzle. Some experiments showed the wave nature and other experiments showed the particle nature. Quantum mechanics came about and showed a way mathematics could verify and predict experiments on the dual nature of light and particles. Light traveling through space acts like waves. Light interacting with matter acts like particles.

As you can see, many repeatable, observations, tests, and measurements lead to understanding the nature and behavior of light and matter. All of these behaviors are successfully codified in the Schroedinger equation, and later Quantum Electrodynamics. This cohesive codified understanding is what allows scientists to make deeper statements about observations that are either seen or predicted.

The major example here is that, between objects at any temperatures, radiation exchange is the only thing that makes sense in the total picture of all past experiments. You are arguing from the perspective of observations, tests, and measurements. I am too, along with the whole scientific community.

 

[SSDD]

Was it a smart photon detector?

You think being fooled by instrumentation is funny? I think it is funny...and sad when you guys get fooled by instrumentation also...

Well, when you combine incoming radiation to the detector with outgoing radiation from the detector, youget the net energy flow.

You are making assumptions about energy flow that you can't back up...probably because you don't understand the instruments...if the thermopile is cooling, then the only thing you can say with certainty about the energy movement is that it is leaving the thermopile...if it is warming, the only thing you can say with certainty is that there is incoming energy...anything else is a baseless assumption...not worth the time it took to make it.

Yup, net energy.[/qyite]

No...if it were net, then when the instrument is warmed to ambient temperature it would still record the incoming radiation...it doesn't..that is because there is no net energy exchange...there is only movement from warm to cool as the 2nd law states.

And yet, radiation is still hitting the receiver.

Magic radiation which hits the receiver but can't be recorded? Clearly you don't grasp what the instrumentation is doing or how its doing it...which explains why you are so easily fooled by it.

 

[SSDD]

Radiation wasn't even discovered when the 2nd Law was written.

Did some special dispensation for radiation get added to the 2nd law? I haven't seen it if it has...if radiation is energy then the second law is talking about it...clearly you don't have a clue.

Why don't you post a couple of sources that agree with your "radiation only flows one way" claim?

Every measurement of energy flow ever made agrees with my claim...that would be because no measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow has ever been made...

 

[SSDD]

OK...so how, precisely does a vibration make the transition from vibration to radiation? What mechanism causes and governs that process...and precisely why does some electromagnetic radiation behave as both wave and particle...what is the mechanism that causes that phenomenon to appear in different circumstances?

That is a fair enough question. This is the short answer.

Four different experimental laws involving electricity and magnetism were discovered by four different scientists. Maxwell consolidated the four experimental laws into what's now called Maxwell's equations. The equations show that vibrating charges emit waves.

This new prediction lead to many experiments. Hertz was the first to test radio frequency transmission to verify Maxwell's equations. Through many experiments and observations it was later concluded that these waves were also the basis of light, Xrays, infrared, etc.

The wave nature of light was well-known for centuries: At high light levels, experiments observed diffraction. The particle nature became more apparent about 100 years ago. At very low light levels the light came in “chunks”. Einstein first explained the chunkiness as separate particles and got the Nobel Prize for the “Photoelectric Effect”.

The nature of EM radiation came from experiments that defied intuition and were a puzzle. Some experiments showed the wave nature and other experiments showed the particle nature. Quantum mechanics came about and showed a way mathematics could verify and predict experiments on the dual nature of light and particles. Light traveling through space acts like waves. Light interacting with matter acts like particles.

As you can see, many repeatable, observations, tests, and measurements lead to understanding the nature and behavior of light and matter. All of these behaviors are successfully codified in the Schroedinger equation, and later Quantum Electrodynamics. This cohesive codified understanding is what allows scientists to make deeper statements about observations that are either seen or predicted.

The major example here is that, between objects at any temperatures, radiation exchange is the only thing that makes sense in the total picture of all past experiments. You are arguing from the perspective of observations, tests, and measurements. I am too, along with the whole scientific community.

Why not simply state that we really don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow rather than bore us with your attempt at bullshitting what we do know into what we don't know? Is bullshitting the only tool at your disposal?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Was it a smart photon detector?

You think being fooled by instrumentation is funny? I think it is funny...and sad when you guys get fooled by instrumentation also...

Well, when you combine incoming radiation to the detector with outgoing radiation from the detector, youget the net energy flow.

You are making assumptions about energy flow that you can't back up...probably because you don't understand the instruments...if the thermopile is cooling, then the only thing you can say with certainty about the energy movement is that it is leaving the thermopile...if it is warming, the only thing you can say with certainty is that there is incoming energy...anything else is a baseless assumption...not worth the time it took to make it.

Yup, net energy.[/qyite]

No...if it were net, then when the instrument is warmed to ambient temperature it would still record the incoming radiation...it doesn't..that is because there is no net energy exchange...there is only movement from warm to cool as the 2nd law states.

And yet, radiation is still hitting the receiver.

Magic radiation which hits the receiver but can't be recorded? Clearly you don't grasp what the instrumentation is doing or how its doing it...which explains why you are so easily fooled by it.

You think being fooled by instrumentation is funny?

No. I think your widespread misunderstandings are funny.

You are making assumptions about energy flow that you can't back up...

You think I can't back up two way flow? That's funny, because you've never posted proof that
radiation can only flow one way. Never. Never ever ever.

if the thermopile is cooling, then the only thing you can say with certainty about the energy movement is that it is leaving the thermopile...

If the thermopile is above 0K, energy is of course leaving. That's what matter does.
It radiates if it is above 0K. Even if warmer matter is nearby.

if it is warming, the only thing you can say with certainty is that there is incoming energy.

Unless it is surrounded by matter at 0K, of course there is incoming energy.

No...if it were net, then when the instrument is warmed to ambient temperature it would still record the incoming radiation.

The ability to record incoming radiation would, of course, depend on how it could account for radiation from itself.

there is no net energy exchange...there is only movement from warm to cool as the 2nd law states.

If only anyone in the world agreed with you.

Interestingly, the source you posted recently, The Handbook of Modern Sensors, 3rd edition, said
there is energy exchange.

If only you had an equivalent source that said there wasn't.

Magic radiation which hits the receiver but can't be recorded?

If the recorder isn't sensitive enough, that means photons aren't hitting it?
Why do photons hit it and then magically stop hitting it?

Clearly you don't grasp what matter above 0K is doing or how its doing it.

 

[Wuwei]

Why not simply state that we really don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow rather than bore us with your attempt at bullshitting what we do know into what we don't know? Is bullshitting the only tool at your disposal?

Insults? That is your only response?

You don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow? Science does. I tried to make it as simple as possible. There are many kinds of energy flow. Just which ones do you think science does not grasp, and what more is needed to “grasp” the mathematical codification of observed experimental knowledge?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Radiation wasn't even discovered when the 2nd Law was written.

Did some special dispensation for radiation get added to the 2nd law? I haven't seen it if it has...if radiation is energy then the second law is talking about it...clearly you don't have a clue.

Why don't you post a couple of sources that agree with your "radiation only flows one way" claim?

Every measurement of energy flow ever made agrees with my claim...that would be because no measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow has ever been made...

Did some special dispensation for radiation get added to the 2nd law?

The 2nd Law doesn't mention radiation. You can admit it.

if radiation is energy then the second law is talking about it...

Great, post the version of the 2nd Law that is talking about radiation and I'll show you your error.

Every measurement of energy flow ever made agrees with my claim..

Awesome. Then it should be easy for you to post a couple of sources that agree with your "radiation only flows one way" claim.

But you won't. Because you can't. Because it doesn't.

 

[SSDD]

Why not simply state that we really don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow rather than bore us with your attempt at bullshitting what we do know into what we don't know? Is bullshitting the only tool at your disposal?

Insults? That is your only response?

You don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow? Science does. I tried to make it as simple as possible. There are many kinds of energy flow. Just which ones do you think science does not grasp, and what more is needed to “grasp” the mathematical codification of observed experimental knowledge?

Science knows that energy flows...it really doesn't know how or why it flows. Science sees the effect of energy flow...science has learned to manipulate energy flow to do work...but the how and why remain unknown.

Clearly you don't grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism. Rather than go through the painful process of trying to describe to you the difference between having a grasp (no matter how tenuous) of what is happening and understanding why it is happening, I will just ask you a few very basic questions about energy and its movement which you will not be able to answer because there are no answers. Perhaps from that exercise you may grasp that we really don't know that much about energy, or how it moves...or maybe not. Anyone who would view models as reality might have a difficult time recognizing the reality of the very large gaps in our knowledge. I doubt that you even grasp that energy itself is an indirectly observed quantity...Hell, you probably don't even know what that means. So, without further adieu...I look forward to seeing your attempts to answer these very basic questions about energy and its movement.

1. Why can energy not be created?

2. Why can energy not be destroyed?

3. How can a photon be present at every point along its path simultaneously?

5. What is the mechanism by which a vibration is translated to radiation?

6. How is it that energy can exist (not to be confused with simply transferring through) a vacuum?

These are just a couple of basic questions that arise from our observation of the effects of energy...they go straight to things we are a very long way from understanding. But your answers should be entertaining. I enjoy watching you wackos pretending to know things that at present are unknowable.

 

[SSDD]

Did some special dispensation for radiation get added to the 2nd law?

The 2nd Law doesn't mention radiation. You can admit it.

If radiation is energy, then the second law includes radiation... interesting that you would think that radiation would be exempt from the second law....the second law doesn't mention chemical energy, or electrical energy, or mechanical energy either....do you also think they are exempt because they weren't specifically mentioned?

Great, post the version of the 2nd Law that is talking about radiation and I'll show you your error.

You never "show" anything...inane one liners are your stock in trade. You are unable to actually engage in a conversation on a topic. But it would be interesting to see how you might show that radiation is not energy and therefore not governed by the second law of thermodynamics.

Awesome. Then it should be easy for you to post a couple of sources that agree with your "radiation only flows one way" claim.

I already have...as I said, every measurement ever made...since there are no instances of spontaneous two way energy flow ever happening, one wouldn't expect for there to be a need to specify one way or two way energy flow...if spontaneous two way energy flow had been measured, then some indication might be necessary. It hasn't and it isn't.

The second law states that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction...you guys claim otherwise therefore the onus lies on you to show spontaneous two way energy flow. Since you can't actually produce any such measurement, it is clear that it has never been measured....and why? Because it doesn't happen. Till you can show otherwise, the second law and its statement that energy can only move spontaneously from warm to cool will have to stand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not simply state that we really don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow rather than bore us with your attempt at bullshitting what we do know into what we don't know? Is bullshitting the only tool at your disposal?

Insults? That is your only response?

You don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow? Science does. I tried to make it as simple as possible. There are many kinds of energy flow. Just which ones do you think science does not grasp, and what more is needed to “grasp” the mathematical codification of observed experimental knowledge?

Science knows that energy flows...it really doesn't know how or why it flows. Science sees the effect of energy flow...science has learned to manipulate energy flow to do work...but the how and why remain unknown.

Clearly you don't grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism. Rather than go through the painful process of trying to describe to you the difference between having a grasp (no matter how tenuous) of what is happening and understanding why it is happening, I will just ask you a few very basic questions about energy and its movement which you will not be able to answer because there are no answers. Perhaps from that exercise you may grasp that we really don't know that much about energy, or how it moves...or maybe not. Anyone who would view models as reality might have a difficult time recognizing the reality of the very large gaps in our knowledge. I doubt that you even grasp that energy itself is an indirectly observed quantity...Hell, you probably don't even know what that means. So, without further adieu...I look forward to seeing your attempts to answer these very basic questions about energy and its movement.

1. Why can energy not be created?

2. Why can energy not be destroyed?

3. How can a photon be present at every point along its path simultaneously?

5. What is the mechanism by which a vibration is translated to radiation?

6. How is it that energy can exist (not to be confused with simply transferring through) a vacuum?

These are just a couple of basic questions that arise from our observation of the effects of energy...they go straight to things we are a very long way from understanding. But your answers should be entertaining. I enjoy watching you wackos pretending to know things that at present are unknowable.

Science knows that energy flows...

Science knows that energy flows...both ways. Except for you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did some special dispensation for radiation get added to the 2nd law?

The 2nd Law doesn't mention radiation. You can admit it.

If radiation is energy, then the second law includes radiation... interesting that you would think that radiation would be exempt from the second law....the second law doesn't mention chemical energy, or electrical energy, or mechanical energy either....do you also think they are exempt because they weren't specifically mentioned?

Great, post the version of the 2nd Law that is talking about radiation and I'll show you your error.

You never "show" anything...inane one liners are your stock in trade. You are unable to actually engage in a conversation on a topic. But it would be interesting to see how you might show that radiation is not energy and therefore not governed by the second law of thermodynamics.

Awesome. Then it should be easy for you to post a couple of sources that agree with your "radiation only flows one way" claim.

I already have...as I said, every measurement ever made...since there are no instances of spontaneous two way energy flow ever happening, one wouldn't expect for there to be a need to specify one way or two way energy flow...if spontaneous two way energy flow had been measured, then some indication might be necessary. It hasn't and it isn't.

The second law states that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction...you guys claim otherwise therefore the onus lies on you to show spontaneous two way energy flow. Since you can't actually produce any such measurement, it is clear that it has never been measured....and why? Because it doesn't happen. Till you can show otherwise, the second law and its statement that energy can only move spontaneously from warm to cool will have to stand.

If radiation is energy, then the second law includes radiation...

So you're not going to post your favorite version of the 2nd Law?
You're not going to admit it doesn't mention radiation or photons or waves?

interesting that you would think that radiation would be exempt from the second law....

Interesting that you think I do.

I already have...as I said, every measurement ever made...since there are no instances of spontaneous two way energy flow ever happening,

Is that why you can't post any source that agrees with your one-way flow of radiation? Weird.

Since you can't actually produce any such measurement, it is clear that it has never been measured

Is that why the Handbook of Modern Sensors shows two way flow? Because they're fooled by instrumentation?

So, to recap, you can't provide anyone who agrees with your claim that radiation only flows one way.
You can't provide anyone who agrees with your claim that radiation ceases when objects reach equilibrium.

You remain alone in your misinterpretation.

 

[jc456]

Why not simply state that we really don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow rather than bore us with your attempt at bullshitting what we do know into what we don't know? Is bullshitting the only tool at your disposal?

Insults? That is your only response?

You don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow? Science does. I tried to make it as simple as possible. There are many kinds of energy flow. Just which ones do you think science does not grasp, and what more is needed to “grasp” the mathematical codification of observed experimental knowledge?

Science knows that energy flows...it really doesn't know how or why it flows. Science sees the effect of energy flow...science has learned to manipulate energy flow to do work...but the how and why remain unknown.

Clearly you don't grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism. Rather than go through the painful process of trying to describe to you the difference between having a grasp (no matter how tenuous) of what is happening and understanding why it is happening, I will just ask you a few very basic questions about energy and its movement which you will not be able to answer because there are no answers. Perhaps from that exercise you may grasp that we really don't know that much about energy, or how it moves...or maybe not. Anyone who would view models as reality might have a difficult time recognizing the reality of the very large gaps in our knowledge. I doubt that you even grasp that energy itself is an indirectly observed quantity...Hell, you probably don't even know what that means. So, without further adieu...I look forward to seeing your attempts to answer these very basic questions about energy and its movement.

1. Why can energy not be created?

2. Why can energy not be destroyed?

3. How can a photon be present at every point along its path simultaneously?

5. What is the mechanism by which a vibration is translated to radiation?

6. How is it that energy can exist (not to be confused with simply transferring through) a vacuum?

These are just a couple of basic questions that arise from our observation of the effects of energy...they go straight to things we are a very long way from understanding. But your answers should be entertaining. I enjoy watching you wackos pretending to know things that at present are unknowable.

Science knows that energy flows...

Science knows that energy flows...both ways. Except for you.

yet you can't show it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not simply state that we really don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow rather than bore us with your attempt at bullshitting what we do know into what we don't know? Is bullshitting the only tool at your disposal?

Insults? That is your only response?

You don't grasp the underlying mechanism for energy flow? Science does. I tried to make it as simple as possible. There are many kinds of energy flow. Just which ones do you think science does not grasp, and what more is needed to “grasp” the mathematical codification of observed experimental knowledge?

Science knows that energy flows...it really doesn't know how or why it flows. Science sees the effect of energy flow...science has learned to manipulate energy flow to do work...but the how and why remain unknown.

Clearly you don't grasp the concept of an underlying mechanism. Rather than go through the painful process of trying to describe to you the difference between having a grasp (no matter how tenuous) of what is happening and understanding why it is happening, I will just ask you a few very basic questions about energy and its movement which you will not be able to answer because there are no answers. Perhaps from that exercise you may grasp that we really don't know that much about energy, or how it moves...or maybe not. Anyone who would view models as reality might have a difficult time recognizing the reality of the very large gaps in our knowledge. I doubt that you even grasp that energy itself is an indirectly observed quantity...Hell, you probably don't even know what that means. So, without further adieu...I look forward to seeing your attempts to answer these very basic questions about energy and its movement.

1. Why can energy not be created?

2. Why can energy not be destroyed?

3. How can a photon be present at every point along its path simultaneously?

5. What is the mechanism by which a vibration is translated to radiation?

6. How is it that energy can exist (not to be confused with simply transferring through) a vacuum?

These are just a couple of basic questions that arise from our observation of the effects of energy...they go straight to things we are a very long way from understanding. But your answers should be entertaining. I enjoy watching you wackos pretending to know things that at present are unknowable.

Science knows that energy flows...

Science knows that energy flows...both ways. Except for you.

yet you can't show it.

Showed it dozens of times.
Why don't you show some sources that say, "radiation only flows one way"?