Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

Tell me...how stupid are you...really? If you claim a thing that has no effect on the outcome of an experiment is happening..a thing that will not alter the end result whatsoever, do you really believe that just by claiming that the result of experiments are consistent with the claim really support the claim? The observation and experiment support one way gross energy movement...actual measurement supports one way energy movement...claiming net that can neither be observed, nor measured and has no effect on the amount of energy which actually moves is a meaningless claim.

Thermal radiation is well known. You can hypothesize two mechanisms that underlie thermal radiation energy transfer, and are consistent with experiment.

1) Radiation goes both ways with the hotter body radiating more than it receives.
2) Radiation goes one way from the hotter to the colder body.​

The first hypothesis is consistent with the mathematical understanding of black body radiation and how the thermal vibration of atoms in warm materials leads to EM radiation.

The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction. There is no currently known mechanism that would explain how that might happen. So anyone that believes that the second hypothesis is correct must supply an atomic scale mechanism on how that might happen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me...how stupid are you...really? If you claim a thing that has no effect on the outcome of an experiment is happening..a thing that will not alter the end result whatsoever, do you really believe that just by claiming that the result of experiments are consistent with the claim really support the claim? The observation and experiment support one way gross energy movement...actual measurement supports one way energy movement...claiming net that can neither be observed, nor measured and has no effect on the amount of energy which actually moves is a meaningless claim.

Thermal radiation is well known. You can hypothesize two mechanisms that underlie thermal radiation energy transfer, and are consistent with experiment.

1) Radiation goes both ways with the hotter body radiating more than it receives.
2) Radiation goes one way from the hotter to the colder body.​

The first hypothesis is consistent with the mathematical understanding of black body radiation and how the thermal vibration of atoms in warm materials leads to EM radiation.

The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction. There is no currently known mechanism that would explain how that might happen. So anyone that believes that the second hypothesis is correct must supply an atomic scale mechanism on how that might happen.

The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction

Don't forget seeing into the future.

 

[Wuwei]

The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction

Don't forget seeing into the future.

Yes. Seeing into the future would work if the future goes out to 13.7 billion years.

That is the time for cosmic background radiation at 2.7K to hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction

Don't forget seeing into the future.

Yes. Seeing into the future would work if the future goes out to 13.7 billion years.

That is the time for cosmic background radiation at 2.7K to hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

And the hotter object has to sense the temperature of the cooler, non-radiating object.

 

[IanC]

As I have said, I have an ongoing dialog via email with several physicists and a couple of cliamte scientists. They are not afraid to discuss what science does not yet know or understand and being actual scientists have a firm grasp on what is real and demonstrable by observation and measurement, and what is the product of models that happen to be unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable. The majority of them believe the models but are not afraid to admit that they are just models with no observable analog out here in the real world

As far as I know, SSDD sent out some emails with a garbled question on whether a vacuum was necessary for the S-B equations to work. The first response was oblique to what he wanted so he changed his question. Further responses were also ambiguous to what SSDD wanted to hear so he stopped asking and just claimed victory with no supporting statements.

I give him credit for asking but he lost even more credit for abusing the answers, for a negative NET credit. Hahahaha

 

[IanC]

Stefan derived this experimentally using the cavity set up. Boltzmann added the mathematical derivation five years later.

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

This fleshes out the sigma constant and describes the necessary adjustments for gray bodies.

Much of the complexity is hidden away in the constant (sigma), as well as in the term A (area), and of course e (emissivity).

The relationship T^4 is fundamental and proven mathematically. Which is a model, but one that SSDD approves of. The actual original data only suggested this relationship, were only correct within measurement error. And they were collected with ambient temperature instruments that are considered crude by today's standards.

 

[SSDD]

Thermal radiation is well known. You can hypothesize two mechanisms that underlie thermal radiation energy transfer, and are consistent with experiment.

The fact of thermal radiation may be well known, but the underlying mechanism is completely unknown.

1) Radiation goes both ways with the hotter body radiating more than it receives.

So lets see the observation, and measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a radiator to a receiver and back to the radiatior made with an instrument at ambient temperature....that would be evidence supporting your claim...lets see it. Of course you can't because no such observation or measurement has ever been made.

And again, claiming that a thing that will not alter the outcome of an experiment in any way is consistent with experimentation is just f'ing stupid...invisible fairies helping dropped objects to the ground is consistent with experiments testing the effects of gravity. Of course there are no fairies, but the claim is consistent with the experiment just as the claim that there is a net two way energy flow from warm to cool. Show me the measurements...we can certainly measure energy moving from a warmer body to a cooler body..and we can measure that energy movement in discrete wavelengths...show me the measurements of discrete wavelengths moving from the cooler object back to the warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

2) Radiation goes one way from the hotter to the colder body.

What do you know...you finally got one right. Energy moves in one direction...from warm to cool.​

The first hypothesis is consistent with the mathematical understanding of black body radiation and how the thermal vibration of atoms in warm materials leads to EM radiation.

But is completely inconsistent with all observations and measurements ever made...just as the fairies assisting gravity. No measurement has ever been made of two way, net energy flow.

The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction. There is no currently known mechanism that would explain how that might happen. So anyone that believes that the second hypothesis is correct must supply an atomic scale mechanism on how that might happen.

Gravity, or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including objects ranging from atoms and photons, to planets and stars. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy (including light) cause gravitation and are under the influence of it. Does that hypothesis need a mechanism in order to be true? This bullshit argument you have that one must have a mechanism in order for the phenomenon to be real is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard....

You want a mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool when we don't even begin to grasp the underlying mechanism for energy transfer at all...how much more idiotic can you get?

 

[SSDD]

The second hypothesis needs to explain a mechanism that prevents radiation from a hot body going in a certain direction

Don't forget seeing into the future.

Yes. Seeing into the future would work if the future goes out to 13.7 billion years.

Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.

That is the time for cosmic background radiation at 2.7K to hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

Still can't grasp the difference between IR and radio waves...f'ing sad...just f'ing sad.

 

[SSDD]

As far as I know, SSDD sent out some emails with a garbled question on whether a vacuum was necessary for the S-B equations to work.

You know you are in intellectual trouble when you find that you must lie in an effort to defend yourself or make your opponent look bad. Here is the question I asked: Do point out any "garble" there? the question is as straight forward as it can get. Does this equation describe any radiator radiating anywhere, or does it describe a black body radiating into a vacuum absent any other matter. What exactly do you find "garbled about that question?

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

The first response was oblique to what he wanted so he changed his question. Further responses were also ambiguous to what SSDD wanted to hear so he stopped asking and just claimed victory with no supporting statements.

And just in case the first lie wasn't good enough, may as well toss in another for good measure...right?

The first answer I received to the question was:

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

Meaning that it is in fact, an equation describing a radiator in a vacuum...since you would have to modify the equation if it were not in a vacuum.

The second answer I received was:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

Neither answer was ambiguous in the least...how much more straight forward could they be? And by the way, the answers were exactly what I expected to hear. You have a damned nasty habit of lying about your opponent if you feel like it might help your case...it doesn't..it only highlights a fundamental flaw in your character. You try to put on a show of being open minded and honest, but talking the talk and walking the walk are two very different things.

I give him credit for asking but he lost even more credit for abusing the answers, for a negative NET credit. Hahahaha

The only one here who lost credit is you ian..because you lied and claimed that I asked a "garbled" question and then lied again claiming that the answers I received were ambiguous...the question was not garbled and the answers were not ambiguous and there was no need for me to abuse them as they were exactly the answers I expected.

 

[SSDD]

Stefan derived this experimentally using the cavity set up. Boltzmann added the mathematical derivation five years later.

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

This fleshes out the sigma constant and describes the necessary adjustments for gray bodies.

Much of the complexity is hidden away in the constant (sigma), as well as in the term A (area), and of course e (emissivity).

The relationship T^4 is fundamental and proven mathematically. Which is a model, but one that SSDD approves of. The actual original data only suggested this relationship, were only correct within measurement error. And they were collected with ambient temperature instruments that are considered crude by today's standards.

And yet the law states that when an object is radiating in the presence of matter, that it radiates according to its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power...Set T and Tc to the same temperature and P=0.

 

[Wuwei]

we don't even begin to grasp the underlying mechanism for energy transfer at all.

Actually we have grasped it for about 100 years. Speak for yourself. YOU don't even begin to grasp it.

 

[Wuwei]

Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.

A non sequitur.
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

Still can't grasp the difference between IR and radio waves...f'ing sad...just f'ing sad.

IR is composed of EM waves. Radio waves are composed of EM waves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.

A non sequitur.
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

Still can't grasp the difference between IR and radio waves...f'ing sad...just f'ing sad.

IR is composed of EM waves. Radio waves are composed of EM waves.

He said radio waves don't recognize hot and cold.

 

[Wuwei]

He said radio waves don't recognize hot and cold.

Really? Then he actually does believe that the 2.7K CMB was detected by a 4K detector. Finally he is learning some science, not much, but just a little.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He said radio waves don't recognize hot and cold.

Really? Then he actually does believe that the 2.7K CMB was detected by a 4K detector. Finally he is learning some science, not much, but just a little.

Well, at first he claimed radio wasn't photons, and that's why it was different than IR.

 

[IanC]

As far as I know, SSDD sent out some emails with a garbled question on whether a vacuum was necessary for the S-B equations to work.

You know you are in intellectual trouble when you find that you must lie in an effort to defend yourself or make your opponent look bad. Here is the question I asked: Do point out any "garble" there? the question is as straight forward as it can get. Does this equation describe any radiator radiating anywhere, or does it describe a black body radiating into a vacuum absent any other matter. What exactly do you find "garbled about that question?

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

The first response was oblique to what he wanted so he changed his question. Further responses were also ambiguous to what SSDD wanted to hear so he stopped asking and just claimed victory with no supporting statements.

And just in case the first lie wasn't good enough, may as well toss in another for good measure...right?

The first answer I received to the question was:

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

Meaning that it is in fact, an equation describing a radiator in a vacuum...since you would have to modify the equation if it were not in a vacuum.

The second answer I received was:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

Neither answer was ambiguous in the least...how much more straight forward could they be? And by the way, the answers were exactly what I expected to hear. You have a damned nasty habit of lying about your opponent if you feel like it might help your case...it doesn't..it only highlights a fundamental flaw in your character. You try to put on a show of being open minded and honest, but talking the talk and walking the walk are two very different things.

I give him credit for asking but he lost even more credit for abusing the answers, for a negative NET credit. Hahahaha

The only one here who lost credit is you ian..because you lied and claimed that I asked a "garbled" question and then lied again claiming that the answers I received were ambiguous...the question was not garbled and the answers were not ambiguous and there was no need for me to abuse them as they were exactly the answers I expected.

Link up to the original thread. Prove my memory to be faulty, although I will gladly admit that it often is.

 

[SSDD]

we don't even begin to grasp the underlying mechanism for energy transfer at all.

Actually we have grasped it for about 100 years. Speak for yourself. YOU don't even begin to grasp it.

Oh good...then you won't mind directing me to the paper, or credible web address where the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange is explained in depth...

My bet now is that you have revealed that you don't even understand the term underlying mechanism...and if you bother to provide a location for the requested information it will be something on the order of energy exchange formulas which do not begin to touch on the how and why energy exchanges in the first place. But by all means, if we grasp those hows and whys and understand thoroughly at the most basic level how and why energy moves about, then I would be most interested in the read.

I enjoy these discussions because they expose how much you believer take on faith..how much you think you know..and how much you believe science knows...which neither you nor they do. You simply have faith and little else.

 

[SSDD]

Future is a function of time...time is irrelevant to an entity traveling at the speed of light.

A non sequitur.
The cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable.

Still can't grasp the difference between IR and radio waves...f'ing sad...just f'ing sad.

IR is composed of EM waves. Radio waves are composed of EM waves.

Alas after all this time, you still can't separate between a resonant radio frequency and infrared radiation....and you think you can school me....what a laugh.

Although you are getting a bit closer to the truth...IR is light and light is a wave...not photons as you claim...but I suppose you will backtrack on that statement at some time and go back to describing light as photons zooming about.

 

[SSDD]

As far as I know, SSDD sent out some emails with a garbled question on whether a vacuum was necessary for the S-B equations to work.

You know you are in intellectual trouble when you find that you must lie in an effort to defend yourself or make your opponent look bad. Here is the question I asked: Do point out any "garble" there? the question is as straight forward as it can get. Does this equation describe any radiator radiating anywhere, or does it describe a black body radiating into a vacuum absent any other matter. What exactly do you find "garbled about that question?

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

The first response was oblique to what he wanted so he changed his question. Further responses were also ambiguous to what SSDD wanted to hear so he stopped asking and just claimed victory with no supporting statements.

And just in case the first lie wasn't good enough, may as well toss in another for good measure...right?

The first answer I received to the question was:

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

Meaning that it is in fact, an equation describing a radiator in a vacuum...since you would have to modify the equation if it were not in a vacuum.

The second answer I received was:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

Neither answer was ambiguous in the least...how much more straight forward could they be? And by the way, the answers were exactly what I expected to hear. You have a damned nasty habit of lying about your opponent if you feel like it might help your case...it doesn't..it only highlights a fundamental flaw in your character. You try to put on a show of being open minded and honest, but talking the talk and walking the walk are two very different things.

I give him credit for asking but he lost even more credit for abusing the answers, for a negative NET credit. Hahahaha

The only one here who lost credit is you ian..because you lied and claimed that I asked a "garbled" question and then lied again claiming that the answers I received were ambiguous...the question was not garbled and the answers were not ambiguous and there was no need for me to abuse them as they were exactly the answers I expected.

Link up to the original thread. Prove my memory to be faulty, although I will gladly admit that it often is.

No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

And it isn't just your memory that is faulty...When you return to that thread...take a look at some of the utter bullshit you tried to spew in an attempt to defend your position...the fundamental SB equation describes a two dimensional object...imagine, a two dimensional object...a two dimensional perfect black body no less radiating in all directions...where do you come up with that stuff? Is there anything you won't say in an effort to defend your beliefs?

 

[Wuwei]

Oh good...then you won't mind directing me to the paper, or credible web address where the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange is explained in depth...

Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, Fourth Edition
By Robert Siegel

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of a body is greater than absolute zero, inter-atomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation, and the wide spectrum of radiation reflects the wide spectrum of energies and accelerations that occur even at a single temperature.​

This is very elementary. Physics 101. I'm surprised you don't know that oscillating charges emit EM radiation. The excerpt is a Wiki article that references that book. Look up the book.