The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Toddsterpatriot]

And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"

This is what Tod is referring to. It's based on SSDD saying that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has never penetrated earth. Since the CMB is cold, 2.7K it should not hit the earth which is at 300K according to SSDD. However a sane person says the CMB penetrating the warm atmosphere and hitting a warm radio telescope dish on earth proves that EM energy from a very cold source can strike a much warmer earth.

SSDD thinks somehow the CMB knows not to hit earth when it is billions of light years away from us and happened billions of years ago. That was said here for example:

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Exactly...CMB is a vibrating system...the vibrations from that system resonate in the radio frequencies...a different system...that is how they were able to detect CMB via radio waves while not actually receiving CMB.

Even when you are looking at the very definition of resonance, and the definition tells you that the vibrations from one system causes another system to oscillate at a greater amplitude, you still apparently don't grasp that they weren't detecting CMB IR with that radio telescope, they were detecting the oscillations in the radio frequencies caused by the CMB.

You are saying the resonantly tuned detectors of Penzias and Wilson's telescope detected radio wave oscillations from the CMB. But they weren't detecting the IR radio oscillations from the CMB. That's a contradiction, to put it mildly.

This whole thing was a tedious discussion that the CMB proves that photons from a cold object can hit a warmer object.

That link you gave me is to post #63 in the Greenhouse Effect thread. I don`t see anything there from SSDD on the entire page. Am I supposed to spend my time looking for it going through each and every page?

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

 

[Wuwei]

That link you gave me is to post #63 in the Greenhouse Effect thread. I don`t see anything there from SSDD on the entire page. Am I supposed to spend my time looking for it going through each and every page?

My gosh, chill out. When I click on it I get #1249. I get the same thing from Tod's link.

For your convenience I also included the text in my link.

 

[polarbear]

Spare me that "chill out" crap. As if I would sit here and click + read through over 60 pages of bullshit all the way to page 125 only to find more bullshit (while I am supposed to prepare supper for my kids)
SSDD never said there that a 3 degK photon can not reach the detector and he sure as hell did not say it can`t reach the earth. You were arguing what it takes to detect it

 

[polarbear]

All the while all of you "experts" were googling radio telescopes you argued that such a (3 degK) can do a spontaneous energy transfer to a warmer object which in that case would be the 300 Ghz LNA.
If it could do it spontaneously then an LNA would not need a power supply. You think you could still detect an extremely low dB signal like that if you cut the power supply of the LNA?

 

[Billy_Bob]

All the while all of you "experts" were googling radio telescopes you argued that such a (3 degK) can do a spontaneous energy transfer to a warmer object which in that case would be the 300 Ghz LNA.
If it could do it spontaneously then an LNA would not need a power supply. You think you could still detect an extremely low dB signal like that if you cut the power supply of the LNA?

Its funny to watch these people implode due to the basic physics they don't know...

Without work being done, we can not detect these low energy photons because they are cooler than the object they strike..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All the while all of you "experts" were googling radio telescopes you argued that such a (3 degK) can do a spontaneous energy transfer to a warmer object which in that case would be the 300 Ghz LNA.
If it could do it spontaneously then an LNA would not need a power supply. You think you could still detect an extremely low dB signal like that if you cut the power supply of the LNA?

Its funny to watch these people implode due to the basic physics they don't know...

Without work being done, we can not detect these low energy photons because they are cooler than the object they strike..

Its funny to watch these people implode due to the basic physics they don't know..

You're funny.
Tell me more about "covailent" bonds repelling photons.

Without work being done, we can not detect these low energy photons because they are cooler than the object they strike.

Hey, nitwit, who said anything about detecting them? SSDD says they can't be emitted toward warmer matter.
And you said "covailent" bonds prevent these "cooler" photons from hitting warmer matter.

 

[polarbear]

You still have not been able to link me to a post where SSDD said that: "photons can`t be emitted toward a warmer matter" and change the subject every time I ask you for it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You still have not been able to link me to a post where SSDD said that: "photons can`t be emitted toward a warmer matter" and change the subject every time I ask you for it.

Typical liberal...accuse your opponent of your precise behavior. And absence of evidence when we are fully capable of measuring minute energy movements is evidence of absence. If energy were moving in both directions, we could measure it.

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

What did he mean here?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You still have not been able to link me to a post where SSDD said that: "photons can`t be emitted toward a warmer matter" and change the subject every time I ask you for it.

Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

Or here?

 

[SSDD]

And in the process you built another strawman. Now you say he said "a photon can see 2 billion years into the future and 2 billion light years away before it decides (or the emitter decides, just as moronic) to be emitted"
You are the one who keeps telling me that he said it. Don`t you think it`s up to you to prove to me that he said it?

They are constantly going on about what photons do and what photons don't do. I pointed out that if you accept the existence of photons as science describes them, then a photon is an entity that travels at the speed of light, and according to science, exists simultaneously across the entire span of its path. That being the case, words like time, future, distance, etc have no meaning to such an entity. The rest is their own interpretation on what I said. Since they can't argue against what I am saying, they add paragraphs of color to my comments and argue against their own words, not mine.

 

[SSDD]

By the way, to you yahoos out there...and you know who you are. I sent an email to the dear professor and congratulated him on misinforming you regarding the second law. He provided a rather long defense of what he said to you ..textbook stuff and all, but in the end, regarding the second law, he said:

" Physics is based in observations and experiment. Any law of physics only stands as a hypothesis that can in principle be falsified by experiment. The laws that we accept are those that have withstood many attempts to falsify them. Thought experiments don’t count, only real measurements. "

Here is a newsflash for you...mathematical models are mind experiments. Till such time as real measurements of spontaneous movement of energy between objects of different temperatures is observed and recorded, the second law will continue to say what it says and actually mean what it says.

So I repeat...no spontaneous process results in a transfer of energy...of any kind to an object of a higher temperature.

 

[Wuwei]

Spare me that "chill out" crap. As if I would sit here and click + read through over 60 pages of bullshit all the way to page 125 only to find more bullshit (while I am supposed to prepare supper for my kids)
SSDD never said there that a 3 degK photon can not reach the detector and he sure as hell did not say it can`t reach the earth. You were arguing what it takes to detect it

Chill out again. You haven't followed the history. He was deflecting to the detector and forever avoiding direct questions about the CMB hitting the atmosphere and dish reflector first.

 

[Wuwei]

All the while all of you "experts" were googling radio telescopes you argued that such a (3 degK) can do a spontaneous energy transfer to a warmer object which in that case would be the 300 Ghz LNA.
If it could do it spontaneously then an LNA would not need a power supply. You think you could still detect an extremely low dB signal like that if you cut the power supply of the LNA?

Of course there is a tuned amplifier that the dish focuses to. SSDD wants you to think that all the radiation physics is at the amplifier. It's the radiation path that comes before the amplifier that is in question.

You are still missing the gist of the argument. Here is a simple question that underlies pages of argument.
Do you think distant 2.7K black body radiation can go through a 300K atmosphere, and hit a 300K dish. Do you consider that as radiation from a cold source hitting a warmer object (the air and dish)?

 

[Wuwei]

By the way, to you yahoos out there...and you know who you are. I sent an email to the dear professor and congratulated him on misinforming you regarding the second law. He provided a rather long defense of what he said to you ..textbook stuff and all, but in the end, regarding the second law, he said:

" Physics is based in observations and experiment. Any law of physics only stands as a hypothesis that can in principle be falsified by experiment. The laws that we accept are those that have withstood many attempts to falsify them. Thought experiments don’t count, only real measurements. "

Here is a newsflash for you...mathematical models are mind experiments. Till such time as real measurements of spontaneous movement of energy between objects of different temperatures is observed and recorded, the second law will continue to say what it says and actually mean what it says.

So I repeat...no spontaneous process results in a transfer of energy...of any kind to an object of a higher temperature.

The professor is correct again. Everyone who understands physics understands that. That doesn't apply to just the second law. It applies to every law and model. It also applies to quantitative measurements that accelerating charges always radiate EM energy.

What is incorrect is your interpretation of what Dr. Raeder said. He did not say math models are mind experiments. It is well known that radiation exchange between all objects does not defy any observation or measurement that created the mathematical model, but is a necessary result of accelerating charges.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By the way, to you yahoos out there...and you know who you are. I sent an email to the dear professor and congratulated him on misinforming you regarding the second law. He provided a rather long defense of what he said to you ..textbook stuff and all, but in the end, regarding the second law, he said:

" Physics is based in observations and experiment. Any law of physics only stands as a hypothesis that can in principle be falsified by experiment. The laws that we accept are those that have withstood many attempts to falsify them. Thought experiments don’t count, only real measurements. "

Here is a newsflash for you...mathematical models are mind experiments. Till such time as real measurements of spontaneous movement of energy between objects of different temperatures is observed and recorded, the second law will continue to say what it says and actually mean what it says.

So I repeat...no spontaneous process results in a transfer of energy...of any kind to an object of a higher temperature.

Any law of physics only stands as a hypothesis that can in principle be falsified by experiment. The laws that we accept are those that have withstood many attempts to falsify them.

I agree. I especially like this one.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which says that the total energy radiated from a blackbody is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature.

Any luck finding an academic who isn't fooled by instrumentation and who agrees with your claim
that photons are only allowed to move from hot to cold?

 

[SSDD]

The professor is correct again. Everyone who understands physics understands that. That doesn't apply to just the second law. It applies to every law and model. It also applies to quantitative measurements that accelerating charges always radiate EM energy.

Being ignorant and a dupe is just a way of life for you, isn't it? Do you think for a second that all those quantitive measurements you hold so dear were made with instruments at ambient temperature, or heaven forbid, were actually warmer than the emitters they were measuring? Are you that ignorant? They were, without fail, measured with cooled instruments.

The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you are a poser with no actual education in the sciences whatsoever.

What is incorrect is your interpretation of what Dr. Raeder said. He did not say math models are mind experiments. It is well known that radiation exchange between all objects does not defy any observation or measurement that created the mathematical model, but is a necessary result of accelerating charges.

What he said required no interpretation. That is a large part of what makes you so stupid...you think everything requires interpretation of some sort. Is a mathematical model an actual experiment that yields observed results? Of course it isn't. It is a thought experiment. Do you think it isn't a thought experiment because it is written in the form of a mathematical formula rather than in english, or french, or german? Is there any limit to your ignorance?

And again, your measurements were made with cooled instruments which just bear out what I have been saying all along...you are just not bright enough to look that far into the experiments...you are the sort who jumps on the crazy train with anyone who tells you that a flashlight is a spontaneous process.

 

[Wuwei]

Being ignorant and a dupe is just a way of life for you, isn't it? Do you think for a second that all those quantitive measurements you hold so dear were made with instruments at ambient temperature, or heaven forbid, were actually warmer than the emitters they were measuring? Are you that ignorant? They were, without fail, measured with cooled instruments.

If you reread my post you would see that I was referring specifically to the measurements of accelerated charges. You don't need cooled detectors to see bremsstrahlung, synchrotron radiation, or radio transmitters. Those are examples of radiation from accelerating charges. Both classical Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics have mathematical models, verified by measurements, that quantify that radiation.

What he said required no interpretation. That is a large part of what makes you so stupid...you think everything requires interpretation of some sort. Is a mathematical model an actual experiment that yields observed results? Of course it isn't. It is a thought experiment. Do you think it isn't a thought experiment because it is written in the form of a mathematical formula rather than in english, or french, or german? Is there any limit to your ignorance?

Of course what he said requires no interpretation. But you nevertheless are doing that to a ludicrous extent.

To wit: The accepted mathematical models in physics are never ever "thought experiments". The rigorousness of mathematics encodes the plethora of experimental measurements to very exacting expressions that can be quantitatively tested against experiments. For you to equate casual language to the precision of mathematics shows your total lack of understanding of what the hard sciences are.

 

[Wuwei]

So I repeat...no spontaneous process results in a transfer of energy...of any kind to an object of a higher temperature.

Not even a light stick? Did you look up chemiluminescence. It is a spontaneous process that can emit radiation to any object.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So I repeat...no spontaneous process results in a transfer of energy...of any kind to an object of a higher temperature.

Not even a light stick? Did you look up chemiluminescence. It is a spontaneous process that can emit radiation to any object.

He never did share his definition of spontaneous. What is he afraid of?

 

[Wuwei]

He never did share his definition of spontaneous. What is he afraid of?

I don't think he is afraid of sullying his reputation as the village idiot. He's probably running out of bad ideas.