The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

He's looking for a definition that doesn't conflict with one of his recent claims.
Looking and looking and looking and looking...…….

 

[SSDD]

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.

So by all means, lets see that observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously in two directions....if it isn't born out by observation, it is a model and models without corresponding observations and measurement are though experiments.

And we both know that there are no measurements of energy moving in spontaneously in both directions between objects of different temperatures...ergo..thought experiment.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Nope...not even a light stick. As I said, anyone who believes they have seen energy move spontaneously between two objects of different temporaries is not only wrong...he is an idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

So by all means, lets see that observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously in two directions....if it isn't born out by observation, it is a model and models without corresponding observations and measurement are though experiments.

And we both know that there are no measurements of energy moving in spontaneously in both directions between objects of different temperatures...ergo..thought experiment.

lets see that observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously in two directions...

Let's see your observed, measured example of objects at equilibrium ceasing radiating.....first.

 

[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..

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.

LOL...

The state of the receiving matter determines if it will absorb, reflect, or scatter the energy.. You still don't understand this very simple concept...

 

[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.

LOL...

The state of the receiving matter determines if it will absorb, reflect, or scatter the energy.. You still don't understand this very simple concept...

The state of the receiving matter determines if it will absorb, reflect, or scatter the energy..

What state of matter repels the photon?
Help me understand your simple concept.

 

[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..

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.

LOL...

The state of the receiving matter determines if it will absorb, reflect, or scatter the energy.. You still don't understand this very simple concept...

The state of the receiving matter determines if it will absorb, reflect, or scatter the energy..

What state of matter repels the photon?
Help me understand your simple concept.

Since no one has defined exactly what a photon is, what exactly do you believe a photon to be. Without a clear frame of reference all that will happen is the Todd 'semantics' game...

Is it energy? Is it matter? Is it subatomic material?

 

[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.

LOL...

The state of the receiving matter determines if it will absorb, reflect, or scatter the energy.. You still don't understand this very simple concept...

The state of the receiving matter determines if it will absorb, reflect, or scatter the energy..

What state of matter repels the photon?
Help me understand your simple concept.

Since no one has defined exactly what a photon is, what exactly do you believe a photon to be. Without a clear frame of reference all that will happen is the Todd 'semantics' game...

Since no one has defined exactly what a photon is, what exactly do you believe a photon to be.

It's that thingy that's emitted by cooler matter and repelled by warmer matter.

 

[Wuwei]

Since no one has defined exactly what a photon is, what exactly do you believe a photon to be. Without a clear frame of reference all that will happen is the Todd 'semantics' game...

Is it energy? Is it matter? Is it subatomic material?

Look up "Standard Theory" You should know that if you know anything about physics.

 

[Wuwei]

Nope...not even a light stick. As I said, anyone who believes they have seen energy move spontaneously between two objects of different temporaries is not only wrong...he is an idiot.

I have seen energy from a lightstick hit a warmer surface. Why don't you think it is spontaneous?

So, you think one of the professors you contacted is an idiot. Why don't you contact the remaining approx. 371,999 professors and call them all idiots too.

 

[Wuwei]

So by all means, lets see that observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously in two directions....if it isn't born out by observation, it is a model and models without corresponding observations and measurement are though experiments.

And we both know that there are no measurements of energy moving in spontaneously in both directions between objects of different temperatures...ergo..thought experiment.

I saw it in a spontaneously glowing lightstick. Haven't you seen one?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Since no one has defined exactly what a photon is, what exactly do you believe a photon to be. Without a clear frame of reference all that will happen is the Todd 'semantics' game...

Is it energy? Is it matter? Is it subatomic material?

Look up "Standard Theory" You should know that if you know anything about physics.

I know what it says and the hypothesis is not settled science... If you all have a warped view and an unrealistic understanding I wont go into a discussion on it...

You guys cant even understand reflection and refraction or why a cooler body can not warm a warmer one... I think its funny that you all believe a low temperature/low energetic wave will warm an object.. Aim you IR thermometer at a cube of ice in a freezer and let me know when your aiming beam melts the ice cube...

 

[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

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.

He was deflecting to the detector and forever avoiding direct questions about the CMB hitting the atmosphere and dish reflector first.
Hahaha I`m not surprised that someone who starts a discussion in Hippie slang would not have a clue about the function of a microwave dish and the LNA.
All the dish does is reflect and focus the microwaves into the wave guide of the LNA which amplifies it.
So what exactly does a "chilled out" Hippie think is going on when the CMB "hits" the atmosphere and the reflector?
...other than being able to pass through the atmosphere and then being reflected by the parabolic dish?

 

[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.

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?

You don`t know? Anyway he did not say to what you inflated it.
All he did was challenging you to show him how you would measure the energy which is transferred in the direction from cold to warm and that he would accept an actual measurement with an instrument capable of doing so as evidence.

 

[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?

You don`t know? Anyway he did not say to what you inflated it.
All he did was challenging you to show him how you would measure the energy which is transferred in the direction from cold to warm and that he would accept an actual measurement with an instrument capable of doing so as evidence.

You don`t know?

I know, do you?

Anyway he did not say to what you inflated it.

He does, all the time.

All he did was challenging you to show him how you would measure the energy which is transferred in the direction from cold to warm

He says you can't measure it, because no photons are ever allowed to move from colder matter to warmer matter. Do you agree that photons will only move one way between objects of different temperatures?

Do you agree that no photons travel between identical objects at identical temperatures?

 

[SSDD]

Since no one has defined exactly what a photon is, what exactly do you believe a photon to be. Without a clear frame of reference all that will happen is the Todd 'semantics' game...

Is it energy? Is it matter? Is it subatomic material?

Look up "Standard Theory" You should know that if you know anything about physics.

Care to hazard a guess as to why they don't call it standard reality?

 

[Wuwei]

.....
So what exactly does a "chilled out" Hippie think is going on when the CMB "hits" the atmosphere and the reflector?
...other than being able to pass through the atmosphere and then being reflected by the parabolic dish?

That is exactly the point. SSDD doesn't believe that the CMB can hit the dish at all. SSDD believes radiation from a cold object can never ever hit a warmer object.

On the other hand you agree that distant 2.7K black body radiation can go through a 300K atmosphere, and hit a 300K dish. So you believe what physicists believe that BB radiation can hit any objects at any temperatures.

The argument is not about the detector, it's about SSDD's misinterpretation of the 2nd law.

 

[Wuwei]

Care to hazard a guess as to why they don't call it standard reality?

Because it's physics, not metaphysics.

If you disagree that the chemiluminescence of a lightstick is not spontaneous, you haven't given a reason why you think that.

 

[SSDD]

Care to hazard a guess as to why they don't call it standard reality?

Because it's physics, not metaphysics.

If you disagree that the chemiluminescence of a lightstick is not spontaneous, you haven't given a reason why you think that.

As I said, only idiots think that they have found a means to spontaneously move energy from cool to warm. Any instance that appears to be so, under proper scrutiny will invariably turn out to be not spontaneous.

As much as I would love to defeat your idiotic arguments once again, alas I don't have time...summer is in full swing and with it, summer parties and festivals...and I am playing with 4 bands at present and have no time to tear your arguments down.

I stand with the second law of thermodynamics which states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm. Do let me know if they change the law before I get back to you. Till then, just the thought of people believing that they have found an instance where energy flows spontaneously from cool to warm gives me a daily chuckle.

By the way...reality is defined as that which exists objectively and in fact. Since no actual evidence exists for your belief in spontaneous two way energy flow, I am afraid that you are the one leaning more towards metaphysics....your belief is positively religious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Care to hazard a guess as to why they don't call it standard reality?

Because it's physics, not metaphysics.

If you disagree that the chemiluminescence of a lightstick is not spontaneous, you haven't given a reason why you think that.

As I said, only idiots think that they have found a means to spontaneously move energy from cool to warm. Any instance that appears to be so, under proper scrutiny will invariably turn out to be not spontaneous.

As much as I would love to defeat your idiotic arguments once again, alas I don't have time...summer is in full swing and with it, summer parties and festivals...and I am playing with 4 bands at present and have no time to tear your arguments down.

I stand with the second law of thermodynamics which states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm. Do let me know if they change the law before I get back to you. Till then, just the thought of people believing that they have found an instance where energy flows spontaneously from cool to warm gives me a daily chuckle.

By the way...reality is defined as that which exists objectively and in fact. Since no actual evidence exists for your belief in spontaneous two way energy flow, I am afraid that you are the one leaning more towards metaphysics....your belief is positively religious.

As I said, only idiots think that they have found a means to spontaneously move energy from cool to warm.

Idiots, Professor Raeder, every academic in the world. Weird.

Any luck finding an academic that agrees with your one-way flow theory?
Any book that you can link that will help your claim? Hmm...….

Till then, just the thought of people believing that they have found an instance where energy flows spontaneously from cool to warm gives me a daily chuckle.

You mean besides energy from the Sun's surface spontaneously flowing to the hotter corona?
You mean besides energy from the Earth's surface spontaneously flowing to the hotter thermosphere?