The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Wuwei]

A photon is a particle of light etc etc etc

Yes, your plethora of definitions show photons have EM energy. Everyone knows that.

The second law of thermodynamics covers processes involving energy flow and rising entropy.

In your frenzy of caustic insults and redundant repetition, you never stated cogent reasons why you think the cold flashlight example is “bullshit”. It is not flawed. It clearly shows an example where the second law is preserved when photons from a colder object (flashlight) hit a warmer object.

 

[SSDD]

A photon is a particle of light etc etc etc

Yes, your plethora of definitions show photons have EM energy. Everyone knows that."

Not "have" EM energy....."Are" em energy. There is a difference. And you didn't answer my question...can you point out any instance where any known EM energy would not be in the form of photons. For instance...what is IR before it is emitted?

The second law of thermodynamics covers processes involving energy flow and rising entropy.

And how might EM energy move, if not in the form of photons? Are you claiming that the second law only covers convection, conduction, and mechanical energy? If so, then you are claiming that any form of electromagnetic energy can freely flow from a cold object to a warmer one which opens the door to all manner of perpetual energy machinery.

In your frenzy of caustic insults and redundant repetition, you never stated cogent reasons why you think the cold flashlight example is “bullshit”. It is not flawed. It clearly shows an example where the second law is preserved when photons from a colder object (flashlight) hit a warmer object.

Your f'ing idiotic flashlight example only works if you accept that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to electromagnetic energy. Good luck with that one. You should have never left your script and ad libbing...you are sounding even crazier than allen right now. Imagine, electromagnetic energy not covered by the second law of thermodynamics.

Guess we can throw Kirchhoff's law, and Planck's law a whole slew of other thermodynamic laws out the window since they clearly deal with photons and the second law of thermodynamics. I simply can't believe that you let the likes of allen push you over the deep end.

By the way you f'ing moron...I pointed out that in your example, you, yourself used a cooled LED...the fact that it was a cooled LED didn't lead you to grasp that you weren't talking about a spontaneous process? Geez guy...you really are this ignorant on the topic aren't you.

At this point, you should be pissed at your warmer buds for not sending you an IM to tell you to shut the hell up before you make a total fool out of yourself...Well...to damned late now.

 

[Wuwei]

Are you claiming that the second law only covers convection, conduction, and mechanical energy?

Nope.

If so, then you are claiming that any form of electromagnetic energy can freely flow from a cold object to a warmer one which opens the door to all manner of perpetual energy machinery.

Yep, except it doesn't lead to perpetual motion.

Your f'ing idiotic flashlight example only works if you accept that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to electromagnetic energy.

The second law covers EM radiation between objects.

Guess we can throw Kirchhoff's law, and Planck's law a whole slew of other thermodynamic laws out the window since they clearly deal with photons and the second law of thermodynamics.

We shouldn't do that.

the fact that it was a cooled LED didn't lead you to grasp that you weren't talking about a spontaneous process?

A system can be constructed using work or external energy. Once that construction is finished and no more work is applied then the system becomes spontaneous. If the pre-cooling bothers you, just don't cool it and simply aim the flashlight at hot asphalt. That would illustrate photons from a colder object hitting a warmer object.

 

[SSDD]

Nope.

Then name another sort of energy, besides chemical energy which doesn't exist in any other form than as photons. I asked you what you thought IR might be before it becomes a photon?

Yep, except it doesn't lead to perpetual motion.

Of course it would. That is the whole point. That is precisely what prevents perpetual motion engines....energy doesn't flow freely from cool objects to warm objects. If you think otherwise, then you have moved even further into the territory of abject ignorance than I though you already were.

The second law covers EM radiation between objects.

Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy. And whenever electromagnetic radiation exists, what form do you think it takes? Again, name a form of EM that does not exist in the form of photons? If you exempt photons from the second law of thermodynamics, then you have to exempt any form of energy which exists in the form of photons. Practically any text you care to look will describe electromagnetic radiation as a stream of massless particles called photons traveling in a wave like pattern at the speed of light. Each photon represents a certain amount of energy. The different sorts of EM radiation are determined by the amount of energy each photon represents. Radio wave photons represent less energy than microwave photons. If you are talking about EM radiation, you are talking about photons.

I still invite you to tell me what sort of EM radiation might exist moving between objects that is not a stream of photons.

We shouldn't do that.

Of course not, but if we are going to exempt photons, which literally what every form of EM radiation is made of, then what other choice do we have.

A system can be constructed using work or external energy. Once that construction is finished and no more work is applied then the system becomes spontaneous. If the pre-cooling bothers you, just don't cool it and simply aim the flashlight at hot asphalt. That would illustrate photons from a colder object hitting a warmer object.

Sorry guy, the fact that work went into making the system means that the system is not a spontaneous process and therefore nothing that comes out of it will be a spontaneous process. Once more, since you clearly didn't pay attention the first time...a spontaneous process is defined by physics as a process occurring, produced, or performed through natural processes without external influences. As I pointed out to you already, the engineers who are developing LED lighting assure us that LED's are not an example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object. It isn't intuitive, but alas, it is true. Have you ever looked at an LED? Ever noticed that it is sitting on a heat sink that is enormous relative to its size?...and you are talking about a cooled LED.

Refer to the first rule..anyone who thinks they have found a way around the second law, a loophole in the second law, or a form of energy that is exempt from the second law is WRONG.

Why not simply admit that you made an error under the influence of a crazy person and move on rather than trying to defend the absolute insanity of claiming that electromagnetic radiation in the form of photons (and what other form would it take) is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics?

 

[Wuwei]

Then name another sort of energy, besides chemical energy which doesn't exist in any other form than as photons. I asked you what you thought IR might be before it becomes a photon?

Kinetic and nuclear energy are not photon energy. IR does not exist before it becomes a photon.

Of course it would. That is the whole point. That is precisely what prevents perpetual motion engines....energy doesn't flow freely from cool objects to warm objects. If you think otherwise, then you have moved even further into the territory of abject ignorance than I though you already were.

Photons can flow freely from any source to any destination. If you think that allows perpetual motion you have to show me the machine design.

Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy. And whenever electromagnetic radiation exists, what form do you think it takes? Again, name a form of EM that does not exist in the form of photons? If you exempt photons from the second law of thermodynamics, then you have to exempt any form of energy which exists in the form of photons. Practically any text you care to look will describe electromagnetic radiation as a stream of massless particles called photons traveling in a wave like pattern at the speed of light. Each photon represents a certain amount of energy. The different sorts of EM radiation are determined by the amount of energy each photon represents. Radio wave photons represent less energy than microwave photons. If you are talking about EM radiation, you are talking about photons.

I still invite you to tell me what sort of EM radiation might exist moving between objects that is not a stream of photons.

Of course all EM radiation is a photon stream. Photons being “exempt” from the 2nd law makes no sense. Only a process can be considered to be exempt, and that never happens. Photons flow freely without regard to temperature in any process that involves photons. We went through this many times before.

Sorry guy, the fact that work went into making the system means that the system is not a spontaneous process and therefore nothing that comes out of it will be a spontaneous process. Once more, since you clearly didn't pay attention the first time...a spontaneous process is defined by physics as a process occurring, produced, or performed through natural processes without external influences.

A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state.​

That is a strict physical definition that is used in the mathematics of thermodynamics. It has nothing to do with what happened before the system was constructed.

If you want to stick to processes that are only naturally occurring before the fact, you would have to say Uranium 235 decay is natural and therefore spontaneous. However you would have to say decay of Americium 241 is not spontaneous because it is not naturally occurring and work went into making it. That makes no sense.

Your post boils down to one thing: you think that exchange of photons between objects can be inhibited by the hotter object. There is no physical mechanism that can cause inhibition of absorption. The LED flashlight is one example.

 

[SSDD]

So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.

What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.

What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.

your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where does the 2nd Law mention photons again?

I noticed you're still afraid to discuss the thermodynamics of heating my home in winter.

 

[Wuwei]

So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Nope, not exempt at all.

According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.

Yep. 372,000 physicists know that there is no 2nd law violation.

What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.

Not just me, all physicists know that it is rational and that is the way nature works. The 2nd law is always obeyed when EM radiation moves freely because all warm objects freely emit more radiation than they absorb from freely emitting cold objects.

We went through this many times. It shouldn't surprise you.

 

[SSDD]

So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.

What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.

your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where does the 2nd Law mention photons again?

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

I noticed you're still afraid to discuss the thermodynamics of heating my home in winter.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer...one can only speak so much to crazy...your walls in winter seem to have had the same sort of mental effect that EM radiation have had on wuwei...

 

[SSDD]

Yep. 372,000 physicists know that there is no 2nd law violation.

Don't seem to be able to find any such literature saying that any form of electromagnetic radiation can move freely between objects of different temperatures...apparently more interpretation on your part. Simply making it up as you go. Nothing new.

Not just me, all physicists know that it is rational and that is the way nature works. The 2nd law is always obeyed when EM radiation moves freely because all warm objects freely emit more radiation than they absorb from freely emitting cold objects.

And again...no mention in any literature of an exemption in the second law which allows free energy transfer between objects via radiation...

We went through this many times. It shouldn't surprise you.

No...this is a whole new level of crazy.

By the way...do you have any observed, measured evidence supporting this whole new level of crazy? You certainly couldn't produce any for any of your previous claims?

Here is a question for you? What are claims worth when you have no evidence to back them up?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.

What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.

your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where does the 2nd Law mention photons again?

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

I noticed you're still afraid to discuss the thermodynamics of heating my home in winter.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer...one can only speak so much to crazy...your walls in winter seem to have had the same sort of mental effect that EM radiation have had on wuwei...

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

If that were the case, you'd have dozens of sources backing up your unique interpretation. Hundreds.
Instead you have none. Weird.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer.

No, you haven't. Not even once.
I'll give you another chance.

The temperature in Chicago in December is 20F.
I turn on my furnace and eventually the walls of my home reach 70F.
Is that because work was done to raise their temperature?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep. 372,000 physicists know that there is no 2nd law violation.

Don't seem to be able to find any such literature saying that any form of electromagnetic radiation can move freely between objects of different temperatures...apparently more interpretation on your part. Simply making it up as you go. Nothing new.

Not just me, all physicists know that it is rational and that is the way nature works. The 2nd law is always obeyed when EM radiation moves freely because all warm objects freely emit more radiation than they absorb from freely emitting cold objects.

And again...no mention in any literature of an exemption in the second law which allows free energy transfer between objects via radiation...

We went through this many times. It shouldn't surprise you.

No...this is a whole new level of crazy.

By the way...do you have any observed, measured evidence supporting this whole new level of crazy? You certainly couldn't produce any for any of your previous claims?

Here is a question for you? What are claims worth when you have no evidence to back them up?

And again...no mention in any literature of an exemption in the second law which allows free energy transfer between objects via radiation...

Did you already forget your source, The Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition?

It's weird that you don't provide any sources that explain that radiation only flows one way.
You know, to dispute the many provided that show two-way flow.

Here is a question for you? What are claims worth when you have no evidence to back them up?

Indeed.

 

[Wuwei]

Don't seem to be able to find any such literature saying that any form of electromagnetic radiation can move freely between objects of different temperatures...apparently more interpretation on your part. Simply making it up as you go. Nothing new.

... And again...no mention in any literature of an exemption in the second law which allows free energy transfer between objects via radiation...

Almost everyone on this thread who understands physics has cited the SB equation as a statement of EM emission minus absorption. The CMB and solar corona has also been cited. Some have cited diagrams from the literature illustrating simultaneous emission and absorption. Equilibrium radiation has been cited extensively in the literature by some on this board. In light of the above, the problem is not that there is no mention in the literature, but it is that you choose not to believe the literature nor modern physics.

It has been demonstrated and is obvious to anyone in physics that photons from random systems are emitted in random directions. The only way radiation is stopped is by absorption in matter. To say that temperature of a distant object can stop radiation has absolutely no basis and violates atomic physics.

There is a scarcity or nonexistence of experiments specifically devoted to two way radiation exchange most likely because it is so obvious that nothing else makes sense. Despite repeated requests you have not supplied your reasoning except for spurious distractions. Your arguments involving the “elegance” of equations or the “face value” of laws, or the metaphysics (“nobody knows what gravity really is”) is not physics and is no match against the power of the laws of physics tested with incredible accuracy.

this is a whole new level of crazy.

You have time and again expressed contempt for modern physics. So it is not a new level of crazy. It's that you have years of a continuing old level of crazy.

 

[SSDD]

So you aren't claiming that electromagnetic radiation is exempt from the second law..you are just trying to get around the second law which says that it is not possible for energy to move from a cool object to a warm object...same old thing with no observed measured examples of any such thing happening.

Well, it is good to know that you are back to operating on faith rather than gone over the deep end believing in perpetual motion machines.

 

[Wuwei]

So you aren't claiming that electromagnetic radiation is exempt from the second law..you are just trying to get around the second law which says that it is not possible for energy to move from a cool object to a warm object...same old thing with no observed measured examples of any such thing happening.

Well, it is good to know that you are back to operating on faith rather than gone over the deep end believing in perpetual motion machines.

I have never claimed that EM is exempt or tried to get around the 2nd law. You jumped to conclusions because you don't understand physics terminology, and had a caustic meltdown. I simply showed you that an LED flashlight can emit photons to a hotter body while it obeys the second law. You do not have a valid reason that it is false.

Now, how about a valid atomic principle that prevents accelerating charges from emitting EM radiation to a hotter body. Better yet how about an atomic principle that prevents both bodies at the same temperature from emitting at all. If you can't do that, then all you have is a misplaced faith.

 

[Crick]

A friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if true, could it cause catastrophic warming. While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.

Lets go straight to the heart of AGW..

The premise is; energy absorbed by our atmosphere is re-emitted towards surface causing warming. The so called big player is CO2, that re-emits energy in a narrow band at 12-16um.

The problems come from several sources when it comes to energy transmission;

1. The electrical state of the molecule. Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state. In a positive state the molecule either reflects the energy or passes it. Each molecule also reacts differently to different wavelengths of energy. Not only does the molecule have to be in the right state it must also be in the range it is capable of reacting to.

2. The time energy resides within the molecule. Water has a very long residency time while CO2 a very short one. CO2 will not warm unless it collides with a warmer object (conduction), where water will absorb and use the energy to warm. Absent another warmer object, CO2 passes energy rapidly and can not warm.

3. The mass/mass conversion of energy. A mass emitting at -80 Deg F can not warm a mass that is warmer. The mass, as a whole, will lose energy more slowly logarithmicly to its surroundings simply due to the increase of mass.

In order to discuss this, one must agree on basic items. First, we must agree that all matter emits energy in all directions above absolute zero (0 deg K). Second, we must agree on how differing energy excitements affect one another. (This is the one which is not settled.) This is the crux of the AGW meme. Depending on the outcome of this determines the failure of the hypothesis, specifically any multiplier of effect (sensitivity).

SO.... How do two molecules, of differing temperatures, affect each-other. How does the energy emitted affect each molecule?

In my next post I will explain what I observe...

Did you actually write all of this? That's the biggest load of pseudo-scientific bullshit I've seen in a month of sundays.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if true, could it cause catastrophic warming. While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.

Lets go straight to the heart of AGW..

The premise is; energy absorbed by our atmosphere is re-emitted towards surface causing warming. The so called big player is CO2, that re-emits energy in a narrow band at 12-16um.

The problems come from several sources when it comes to energy transmission;

1. The electrical state of the molecule. Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state. In a positive state the molecule either reflects the energy or passes it. Each molecule also reacts differently to different wavelengths of energy. Not only does the molecule have to be in the right state it must also be in the range it is capable of reacting to.

2. The time energy resides within the molecule. Water has a very long residency time while CO2 a very short one. CO2 will not warm unless it collides with a warmer object (conduction), where water will absorb and use the energy to warm. Absent another warmer object, CO2 passes energy rapidly and can not warm.

3. The mass/mass conversion of energy. A mass emitting at -80 Deg F can not warm a mass that is warmer. The mass, as a whole, will lose energy more slowly logarithmicly to its surroundings simply due to the increase of mass.

In order to discuss this, one must agree on basic items. First, we must agree that all matter emits energy in all directions above absolute zero (0 deg K). Second, we must agree on how differing energy excitements affect one another. (This is the one which is not settled.) This is the crux of the AGW meme. Depending on the outcome of this determines the failure of the hypothesis, specifically any multiplier of effect (sensitivity).

SO.... How do two molecules, of differing temperatures, affect each-other. How does the energy emitted affect each molecule?

In my next post I will explain what I observe...

Did you actually write all of this? That's the biggest load of pseudo-scientific bullshit I've seen in a month of sundays.

Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state.

He never did explain what the above means.

He posts so much baloney, I think his real name is Oscar Mayer.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if true, could it cause catastrophic warming. While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.

Lets go straight to the heart of AGW..

The premise is; energy absorbed by our atmosphere is re-emitted towards surface causing warming. The so called big player is CO2, that re-emits energy in a narrow band at 12-16um.

The problems come from several sources when it comes to energy transmission;

1. The electrical state of the molecule. Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state. In a positive state the molecule either reflects the energy or passes it. Each molecule also reacts differently to different wavelengths of energy. Not only does the molecule have to be in the right state it must also be in the range it is capable of reacting to.

2. The time energy resides within the molecule. Water has a very long residency time while CO2 a very short one. CO2 will not warm unless it collides with a warmer object (conduction), where water will absorb and use the energy to warm. Absent another warmer object, CO2 passes energy rapidly and can not warm.

3. The mass/mass conversion of energy. A mass emitting at -80 Deg F can not warm a mass that is warmer. The mass, as a whole, will lose energy more slowly logarithmicly to its surroundings simply due to the increase of mass.

In order to discuss this, one must agree on basic items. First, we must agree that all matter emits energy in all directions above absolute zero (0 deg K). Second, we must agree on how differing energy excitements affect one another. (This is the one which is not settled.) This is the crux of the AGW meme. Depending on the outcome of this determines the failure of the hypothesis, specifically any multiplier of effect (sensitivity).

SO.... How do two molecules, of differing temperatures, affect each-other. How does the energy emitted affect each molecule?

In my next post I will explain what I observe...

Did you actually write all of this? That's the biggest load of pseudo-scientific bullshit I've seen in a month of sundays.

Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state.

He never did explain what the above means.

He posts so much baloney, I think his real name is Oscar Mayer.

Again such bull shit.... you know exactly what the negative or low state of a molecule is and several people have tried to explain it.. Too bad you didn't like the answer.. Weird how some can be disingenuous that way..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if true, could it cause catastrophic warming. While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.

Lets go straight to the heart of AGW..

The premise is; energy absorbed by our atmosphere is re-emitted towards surface causing warming. The so called big player is CO2, that re-emits energy in a narrow band at 12-16um.

The problems come from several sources when it comes to energy transmission;

1. The electrical state of the molecule. Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state. In a positive state the molecule either reflects the energy or passes it. Each molecule also reacts differently to different wavelengths of energy. Not only does the molecule have to be in the right state it must also be in the range it is capable of reacting to.

2. The time energy resides within the molecule. Water has a very long residency time while CO2 a very short one. CO2 will not warm unless it collides with a warmer object (conduction), where water will absorb and use the energy to warm. Absent another warmer object, CO2 passes energy rapidly and can not warm.

3. The mass/mass conversion of energy. A mass emitting at -80 Deg F can not warm a mass that is warmer. The mass, as a whole, will lose energy more slowly logarithmicly to its surroundings simply due to the increase of mass.

In order to discuss this, one must agree on basic items. First, we must agree that all matter emits energy in all directions above absolute zero (0 deg K). Second, we must agree on how differing energy excitements affect one another. (This is the one which is not settled.) This is the crux of the AGW meme. Depending on the outcome of this determines the failure of the hypothesis, specifically any multiplier of effect (sensitivity).

SO.... How do two molecules, of differing temperatures, affect each-other. How does the energy emitted affect each molecule?

In my next post I will explain what I observe...

Did you actually write all of this? That's the biggest load of pseudo-scientific bullshit I've seen in a month of sundays.

Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state.

He never did explain what the above means.

He posts so much baloney, I think his real name is Oscar Mayer.

Again such bull shit.... you know exactly what the negative or low state of a molecule is and several people have tried to explain it.. Too bad you didn't like the answer.. Weird how some can be disingenuous that way..

you know exactly what the negative or low state of a molecule is and several people have tried to explain it..

Repeat your explanation.

 

[SSDD]

So you aren't claiming that electromagnetic radiation is exempt from the second law..you are just trying to get around the second law which says that it is not possible for energy to move from a cool object to a warm object...same old thing with no observed measured examples of any such thing happening.

Well, it is good to know that you are back to operating on faith rather than gone over the deep end believing in perpetual motion machines.

I have never claimed that EM is exempt or tried to get around the 2nd law. You jumped to conclusions because you don't understand physics terminology, and had a caustic meltdown. I simply showed you that an LED flashlight can emit photons to a hotter body while it obeys the second law. You do not have a valid reason that it is false.

Now, how about a valid atomic principle that prevents accelerating charges from emitting EM radiation to a hotter body. Better yet how about an atomic principle that prevents both bodies at the same temperature from emitting at all. If you can't do that, then all you have is a misplaced faith.

Like I said...you are trying to find a loophole in the second law which would allow energy to flow freely from a cool object to a warm object...engineers assure us that LED's are not an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool body to a warm body. Same old false claims with no actual evidence to back you up. Your instinct is wrong, but by all means, go out and bring something from the literature which claims that an LED is an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object.

And again...what I have regarding energy moving from cool to warm is the second law itself which says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...and the fact that such movement has never been observed or measured.

The hard fact is that if there were any exceptions to the statement that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm, then it would not be a physical law.

Here are a couple of papers which will not convince you in the least that you are wrong, but they do explain in some detail how terribly you have misinterpreted several radiation laws in your attempt to get around the second law of thermodynamics.

http://tech-know-group.com/papers/IR-absorption_updated.pdf

https://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM_REYNEN_Planck_absorption.pdf

If you find any problems or errors, by all means point them out...if you just want to hurl some logical fallacies in an impotent attempt to discredit, I will certainly understand..it is, after all, the only weapon you have at your disposal in this discussion,