Trenberth's Energy Budget

[IanC]

Ian, If you poke a hole in the sidewall of your cars tire, can you place your hand a few centimeters away and force the air back in it? or is the energy from the expelling air to great to allow the air to go back whence it came?

if you point a flashlight at a mirror will it make that flashlight brighter? or will the illumination make the mirror and environment brighter?

You can virtually take any type of real world application and find the same type of examples. Every single one in the natural world without help to achieve a difference will result in the stronger energy winning over the weaker energy.

Yet somehow you seem to think its not going to apply in spencers experiment or in your variations... WOW... I have no words man... Good luck with your patent on your endless heat engine bud...LOL

what am I dodging here?

if the ambient air pressure surrounding the tire was increased would that slow the flow of air out of the tire? yes. you didnt explain how a hand away from the hole was supposed to effect the situation. why would I respond to a nonsense scenario?

again, what is your flashlight comment supposed to show? are you saying that it is impossible for a photon to bounce back from the mirror and be absorbed by the filament if it can find a molecule or atom that is in a state capable of absorbing that photon?it certainly can. thermodynamics and entrope state that you cannot make perfect mirrors so that ALL the energy is returned to the source. it does not state that NO energy can return.

accusing me of building a perpetual motion machine or a free energy machine is strictly an 'ad hominem' attack, totally concocted in your imagination with no reference to what I have said.


you have agreed that wirebender's math on Spencer's experiment is correct. perhaps you can answer the simple question that wirebender refuses to address....

why does wirebender use the calculated temperature for the heated bar in a zero degree container, in an experiment that specifies a container at 255 degrees Kelvin?

how can the term (T^4- 0^4) equal (T^4- 255^4)?

 

[wirebender]

wow!!!

first wirebender overthrows known physics by stating photons magically disappear in open space by a method only known by him and now....he has decided that the associative law of mathematics only holds true when he want it to.

You believe the laws of physics obey the laws of mathematics? Interesting. Clearly you don't grasp the physics when you claimed that p=sigma (T^4 - T^4) incorporated backradiation. You are out of your depth and clearly in over your head. I am not and have not dodged anything. I have been as patient as I can with you and am finished with you till you can show me observable, repeatable evidence of backradiation either in a laboratory or in nature.

 

[IanC]

wow!!!

first wirebender overthrows known physics by stating photons magically disappear in open space by a method only known by him and now....he has decided that the associative law of mathematics only holds true when he want it to.

You believe the laws of physics obey the laws of mathematics? Interesting. Clearly you don't grasp the physics when you claimed that p=sigma (T^4 - T^4) incorporated backradiation. You are out of your depth and clearly in over your head. I am not and have not dodged anything. I have been as patient as I can with you and am finished with you till you can show me observable, repeatable evidence of backradiation either in a laboratory or in nature.

in other words you are cowardly ducking my question.

you proudly proclaimed that you had done the math and it proved you right. now that I showed your math incorrect you dont want to talk about it anymore.

apparently you no longer believe in the Stefan-Boltzmann equations. at least not now that they show you to be mistaken.


you know, its not that big a deal to be wrong once in a while. I dont see why you are taking it so personally. you cribbed someone else's mathematical 'debunking' of Spencer's thought experiment and you really, really wanted it to be true. so what if it wasnt correct? does it surprise you that a noted physicist had a deeper understanding of physics that some poster named Gord?

 

[wirebender]

in other words you are cowardly ducking my question.

I am not ducking anything Ian.

you proudly proclaimed that you had done the math and it proved you right. now that I showed your math incorrect you dont want to talk about it anymore.

The only thing you showed is that the math is over your head in your claim that P=sigma(T^4 - T^4) was an expression of backradiation.

apparently you no longer believe in the Stefan-Boltzmann equations. at least not now that they show you to be mistaken.

That you actually believe that you have shown me to be mistaken is nothing but more evidence that you don't grasp the math. Why do you believe that the physics texts taught p=sigma (T^4 - T^4) for a hundred years and then suddenly, when backradiation was required to support AGW alarmism, the climate science physics books started teaching P=(sigma T^4)-(sigma T^4)?

And the fact that you don't recognize that the two equations are describing very different physics is further evidence that the math is over your head.

you know, its not that big a deal to be wrong once in a while.

No, it isn't. In this case, however, I am not wrong as evidenced by your failure to demonstrate any observable, repeatable evidence of backradiation in the laboratory or nature. You should take your own homilies to heart.

I dont see why you are taking it so personally. you cribbed someone else's mathematical 'debunking' of Spencer's thought experiment and you really, really wanted it to be true. so what if it wasnt correct? does it surprise you that a noted physicist had a deeper understanding of physics that some poster named Gord?

I cribbed nothing. I used very similar mathematics earlier which were also so far over your head that you had nothing to say when you saw them before. Further, I am the one who pointed out your error in claiming that p=sigma (T^4 - T^4) was an expression of backradiation and had to show you what the equation looks like if you want to claim backradiation. It is you, ian, who doesn't grasp the math.

I also find it interesting how you so often appeal to the board while I, on the other hand, talk directly to you. You do realize don't you that appealing to others is a subconscious admission that you lack any confidence in your argument and are looking for approval from anyone whether they have a clue or not?

 

[gslack]

Ian, If you poke a hole in the sidewall of your cars tire, can you place your hand a few centimeters away and force the air back in it? or is the energy from the expelling air to great to allow the air to go back whence it came?

if you point a flashlight at a mirror will it make that flashlight brighter? or will the illumination make the mirror and environment brighter?

You can virtually take any type of real world application and find the same type of examples. Every single one in the natural world without help to achieve a difference will result in the stronger energy winning over the weaker energy.

Yet somehow you seem to think its not going to apply in spencers experiment or in your variations... WOW... I have no words man... Good luck with your patent on your endless heat engine bud...LOL

what am I dodging here?

if the ambient air pressure surrounding the tire was increased would that slow the flow of air out of the tire? yes. you didnt explain how a hand away from the hole was supposed to effect the situation. why would I respond to a nonsense scenario?

again, what is your flashlight comment supposed to show? are you saying that it is impossible for a photon to bounce back from the mirror and be absorbed by the filament if it can find a molecule or atom that is in a state capable of absorbing that photon?it certainly can. thermodynamics and entrope state that you cannot make perfect mirrors so that ALL the energy is returned to the source. it does not state that NO energy can return.

accusing me of building a perpetual motion machine or a free energy machine is strictly an 'ad hominem' attack, totally concocted in your imagination with no reference to what I have said.


you have agreed that wirebender's math on Spencer's experiment is correct. perhaps you can answer the simple question that wirebender refuses to address....

why does wirebender use the calculated temperature for the heated bar in a zero degree container, in an experiment that specifies a container at 255 degrees Kelvin?

how can the term (T^4- 0^4) equal (T^4- 255^4)?

LOL, you posturing phony!

I asked you:

"Ian, If you poke a hole in the sidewall of your cars tire, can you place your hand a few centimeters away and force the air back in it? or is the energy from the expelling air to great to allow the air to go back whence it came?"

You responded with:

"if the ambient air pressure surrounding the tire was increased would that slow the flow of air out of the tire? yes. you didnt explain how a hand away from the hole was supposed to effect the situation."

Right there the underlined part you blatantly twisted my question. Why? If it is so nonsensical why not answer it as it was? Thats been your MO since this thing began, and even from the previous arguments you did this.. If its such a nonsensical question why did you have to alter it and answer your own question? Its simple Ian, you are a fake and a fraud and only care to save your BS identity...

The answer to my question as you well now was that the air would not go back into the tire whence it came simply by placing your hand close to it, or anything else for that matter. And why? Because the energy coming from the tire will beat the energy from the air reflecting off your hand every time. Simple yet you couldn't give an honest answer to an honest question, you had to alter the question again....

Ian you don't understand entropy any more than duality, or any other concept here. You are a fake, and a fraud and not only is painfully obvious, but very sad to watch...

Ian Spencer relied on people to be too-pig headed to look into entropy and understand it. People just like you...

 

[IanC]

how desparate you must be to be reduced to arguing that rearranging terms in a formula is making a case.

you still havent answered the question. if your math is correct, why do you get the same temperature for the heater whether it is radiating into a zero degree container or a 255 degree container? simple question, asked many times, always ducked.

do you need the formula? you have posted it many times but I can repost it for you if you want. its the same one that you complain about if someone rearranges the terms. you must have had a rough time in math and calculus if you are uncomfortable with rearranging terms.

will you answer my question this time or are you going to duck again?

 

[IanC]

Ian, If you poke a hole in the sidewall of your cars tire, can you place your hand a few centimeters away and force the air back in it? or is the energy from the expelling air to great to allow the air to go back whence it came?

if you point a flashlight at a mirror will it make that flashlight brighter? or will the illumination make the mirror and environment brighter?

You can virtually take any type of real world application and find the same type of examples. Every single one in the natural world without help to achieve a difference will result in the stronger energy winning over the weaker energy.

Yet somehow you seem to think its not going to apply in spencers experiment or in your variations... WOW... I have no words man... Good luck with your patent on your endless heat engine bud...LOL

what am I dodging here?

if the ambient air pressure surrounding the tire was increased would that slow the flow of air out of the tire? yes. you didnt explain how a hand away from the hole was supposed to effect the situation. why would I respond to a nonsense scenario?

again, what is your flashlight comment supposed to show? are you saying that it is impossible for a photon to bounce back from the mirror and be absorbed by the filament if it can find a molecule or atom that is in a state capable of absorbing that photon?it certainly can. thermodynamics and entrope state that you cannot make perfect mirrors so that ALL the energy is returned to the source. it does not state that NO energy can return.

accusing me of building a perpetual motion machine or a free energy machine is strictly an 'ad hominem' attack, totally concocted in your imagination with no reference to what I have said.


you have agreed that wirebender's math on Spencer's experiment is correct. perhaps you can answer the simple question that wirebender refuses to address....

why does wirebender use the calculated temperature for the heated bar in a zero degree container, in an experiment that specifies a container at 255 degrees Kelvin?

how can the term (T^4- 0^4) equal (T^4- 255^4)?

LOL, you posturing phony!

I asked you:

"Ian, If you poke a hole in the sidewall of your cars tire, can you place your hand a few centimeters away and force the air back in it? or is the energy from the expelling air to great to allow the air to go back whence it came?"

You responded with:

"if the ambient air pressure surrounding the tire was increased would that slow the flow of air out of the tire? yes. you didnt explain how a hand away from the hole was supposed to effect the situation."

Right there the underlined part you blatantly twisted my question. Why? If it is so nonsensical why not answer it as it was? Thats been your MO since this thing began, and even from the previous arguments you did this.. If its such a nonsensical question why did you have to alter it and answer your own question? Its simple Ian, you are a fake and a fraud and only care to save your BS identity...

The answer to my question as you well now was that the air would not go back into the tire whence it came simply by placing your hand close to it, or anything else for that matter. And why? Because the energy coming from the tire will beat the energy from the air reflecting off your hand every time. Simple yet you couldn't give an honest answer to an honest question, you had to alter the question again....

Ian you don't understand entropy any more than duality, or any other concept here. You are a fake, and a fraud and not only is painfully obvious, but very sad to watch...

Ian Spencer relied on people to be too-pig headed to look into entropy and understand it. People just like you...

gslack--how does having your hand in a specific place force air to do anything? explain the concept that your ridiculous example is supposed to be illustrating.

 

[gslack]

how desparate you must be to be reduced to arguing that rearranging terms in a formula is making a case.

you still havent answered the question. if your math is correct, why do you get the same temperature for the heater whether it is radiating into a zero degree container or a 255 degree container? simple question, asked many times, always ducked.

do you need the formula? you have posted it many times but I can repost it for you if you want. its the same one that you complain about if someone rearranges the terms. you must have had a rough time in math and calculus if you are uncomfortable with rearranging terms.

will you answer my question this time or are you going to duck again?

Ian you seriously do not get the difference in his and yours?



All of your posturing, all of your BS, all of your googled terms and big talk and it can all be boiled down to that statement I made bold...

LOL, okay Ian. Mr physics..

 

[gslack]

what am I dodging here?

if the ambient air pressure surrounding the tire was increased would that slow the flow of air out of the tire? yes. you didnt explain how a hand away from the hole was supposed to effect the situation. why would I respond to a nonsense scenario?

again, what is your flashlight comment supposed to show? are you saying that it is impossible for a photon to bounce back from the mirror and be absorbed by the filament if it can find a molecule or atom that is in a state capable of absorbing that photon?it certainly can. thermodynamics and entrope state that you cannot make perfect mirrors so that ALL the energy is returned to the source. it does not state that NO energy can return.

accusing me of building a perpetual motion machine or a free energy machine is strictly an 'ad hominem' attack, totally concocted in your imagination with no reference to what I have said.


you have agreed that wirebender's math on Spencer's experiment is correct. perhaps you can answer the simple question that wirebender refuses to address....

why does wirebender use the calculated temperature for the heated bar in a zero degree container, in an experiment that specifies a container at 255 degrees Kelvin?

how can the term (T^4- 0^4) equal (T^4- 255^4)?

LOL, you posturing phony!

I asked you:

"Ian, If you poke a hole in the sidewall of your cars tire, can you place your hand a few centimeters away and force the air back in it? or is the energy from the expelling air to great to allow the air to go back whence it came?"

You responded with:

"if the ambient air pressure surrounding the tire was increased would that slow the flow of air out of the tire? yes. you didnt explain how a hand away from the hole was supposed to effect the situation."

Right there the underlined part you blatantly twisted my question. Why? If it is so nonsensical why not answer it as it was? Thats been your MO since this thing began, and even from the previous arguments you did this.. If its such a nonsensical question why did you have to alter it and answer your own question? Its simple Ian, you are a fake and a fraud and only care to save your BS identity...

The answer to my question as you well now was that the air would not go back into the tire whence it came simply by placing your hand close to it, or anything else for that matter. And why? Because the energy coming from the tire will beat the energy from the air reflecting off your hand every time. Simple yet you couldn't give an honest answer to an honest question, you had to alter the question again....

Ian you don't understand entropy any more than duality, or any other concept here. You are a fake, and a fraud and not only is painfully obvious, but very sad to watch...

Ian Spencer relied on people to be too-pig headed to look into entropy and understand it. People just like you...

gslack--how does having your hand in a specific place force air to do anything? explain the concept that your ridiculous example is supposed to be illustrating.

Im done Ian, you are an idiot, you think linearly and one dimensional.. Ian you I think you are deliberately trying to be obtuse now, you know full and well the implications of energy in my question, just as you know full and wll why you cannot answer it honestly.. Just like you couldn't answer my question about the flashlight honestly or any other question you have been asked... If you answer them honestly you know full and well what that means in your argument.. It means the laws are being bent to support your claim...

Ian you aren't the physics expert you have pretended to be here, I know it, wire knows it, and so do you.. You had a long run of bullshitting with googled terms and pretense, but you just like many other internet fakes got full of yourself and forgot it was bullshit... You bought into your online character and overstepped you bullshit safe zone.. We are now into areas you cannot bullshit or fake..

If you knew the math it would show, just as it shows you don't. And if you actually understood the concepts, again it would show. But so far all that shows is you do not even care to understand any of it, all you care about is saving face...

Pretty pathetic Ian..... You should be ashamed of yourself lying to people for no reason other than appear better or more knowledgeable in a simple web forum.. What possesses people to act this way I have cannot imagine...

 

[IanC]

I see that you have no coherent explanation for your hand/ slashed tire scenario. if you cant figure out what you're trying to say why do you think anyone else should?

and still no response from tweedledum and tweedledumber about the first mathematical mistake in wirebender's 'debunking' of Spencer. have you two conceeded? ungraciously I might add.

 

[gslack]

Ian quit being a douchebag already.. grow up man.. You are a fake its just ignorant now..

Ian can you in the very least explain what a true "black body" is in terms of this discussion in your own words?

No altering the question, no bullshit just answer it on your own words..

I will wait.. Any idea how long its going to take you to google an obscure answer you feel safe enough to post in here? I mean I have work to do and kids so try and not take a couple of days again...

 

[IanC]

more attempts at deflection?

you guys asked me to prove your math wrong. I accept your challenge. back up your case or admit defeat

 

[gslack]

more attempts at delection?

you guys asked me to prove your math wrong. I accept your challenge. back up your case or admit defeat

No douchebag you claimed we were wrong, no one asked you to prove anything.. Don't you dare even try to make that lie stick you incessant little twerp.... YOU DID ALL OF THIS YOU IGNORANT FOOL!!!

No deflection except all the deflections you have done till this point.. I asked you another simple freaking question regarding basic thermodynamics and AGAIN you refuse to answer..

How many basics of physics can you not have any knowledge of BEFORE you come clean or at least let it rest? How many basics of physical science have been unable to explain here now Ian?

Lets review....

1. You didn't know anything about the double-slit experiment in either form I posted examples of, and you even make the implication they were nonsense... They ARE one of the base experiments used in beginning physics classes all over the world and have been for many many years... You not only didn't recognize it, you didn't even deem it a viable experiment at all.. According to whom? The rest of the physics education community or you?

2. You do not understand wave-particle duality and when asked to explain your understanding of its principles you again flatly refused to do so. In fact likening the implications to "magic" at one point.

3. You did not recognize implications in swapping the order of variables in an equation.. its an equation Ian, a mathematical formula the sequence is part and parcel to the formula.. Try baking a cake with that claim once Ian.. tell us how it works out for you...

4. You didn't recognize Fermat's last theorem... Dude seriously? Any physicist or student with any desire to find truth especially BEFORE the "proof" has in the very least spent some time trying to figure it out themselves.. jesus man..

5. You have altered our direct questions to you at every turn, rather than answering what we ask, you try and answer what you wish or want us to ask..

6. When asked even some of the most basic questions you divert, posture and preen like a peacock and google up new terms and altered versions of the original experiment all in the attempt to appear smarter or knowledgeable. And then try and claim we are the ones doing it...

7. Every time Ian does the math you cry for on here you run away for a day or more and then come back with multiple posts in an attempt to bury it under ever more complications that are not only unnecessary and do nothing to counter his math, but only show how little of this you actually do understand.

8. Now you cannot explain backradiation, or back radiation (they are indeed the same thing I have seen both in various physics sites lately) in your own words as pertains to this discussion.. The entire concept of backradiation is the very core of your claims here Ian, if you do understand what you are arguing for or against, you should in the very least be able to explain its core principle in your own words....

There are more, I am just too tired to bother with your childish ignorant ass anymore.. You are a fake, and whats worse a fake who believes his own bullshit online identity now... Pathetic, truly pathetic... You have gone from a bullshit "expert" to an obvious fake and all because you bought into your own lies so much and for so long you forgot where the lies stopped and truth began...

Nice work phony! Take a bow!

 

[wirebender]

how desparate you must be to be reduced to arguing that rearranging terms in a formula is making a case.

Ian, talking to you is like talking to a slightly retarded child. You have to have every single thing explained to you in detail and even after you get the explanation, you still don't get it.

You might start by showing me in the physics literature where it is permissable to randomly apply the distributive property (or any property for that matter) of algebra for phisics problems. To the best of my knowledge, in physics, if you are going to apply an algebraic property then the property must be assigned a physical meaning. In this case it hasn't or if it has, then feel free to point me to the text in the physics literature in which it has. If you had ever taken physics, you would know that you can't simply apply random mathematical properties to equations dealing with physical laws and then say look, they get the same answer so they must be the same. It doesn't work that way in physics.

When you apply the distributive property to the SB law, you describe an entirely different set of physics. The SB law is expressed as p=sigma (T^4 - T^4) which describes an emitter at one temperature emitting into a background at a lower temperature.

When you apply the distributive property to the equation, you are applying the SB law twice which describes a very different thing. By using the distributive property you are describing (sigma T^4) the emitter at its temperature radiating into a background at a lower temperature minus the background (sigma T^4) which, according to SB is also radiating into a background at a lower temperature. Obviously this isn't what is happening. It is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You have the background which is at the lower temperature radiating back to the emitter but to do so you must apply the SB law a second time and claim that now the emitter is at the lower temperature even though we both know that the emitter is at a higher temperature. The answer is the same but one is describing a phyisical process which is observable and repeatable and the other describes a fictional process (backradiation) invented to support AGW alarmism which is not observable and exists neither in nature nor in the laboratory.

I am sorry Ian, but you have made it more than clear that you simply don't posess the requsite math skills, analytical skills, or knowledge of the physical laws to adequately discuss this topic.

If you believe there exists observable, repeatable proof of backradiation, then present it. Failing to do that loses you the argument as my argument stands.

you still havent answered the question. if your math is correct, why do you get the same temperature for the heater whether it is radiating into a zero degree container or a 255 degree container? simple question, asked many times, always ducked.

I answered your question Ian. As I have said, you lack the requsite math and analytical skills to understand what you are being told. Did, or did not spencer state that his experiment was to represent the bars as an analog to earth sitting in space? He said:

One way to demonstrate the concept is with the following thought experiment, which I will model roughly after the Earth suspended in the cold of outer space.

Now Ian, do you think that spencer doesn't realize that space is represented at 0 K or do you think that perhaps spencer doesn't know that space isn't at 0 F? He said cold space and that being the case I am supposing that setting the temp at 0 F was an oversight on his part.

I have answered your question Ian, ad nauseum. Again, sorry that you lack the requsite skills to even realize that you have been answered, much less understand the answer you were given.

When you can show me in the physics literature that it is permissable to apply algebraic properties to physics problems without having first assigned a physical meaning to the property, or you can show observable, repeatable evidence of backradiation, we will have something to talk about. Till that time, you are wrong, and you have been proven wrong whether or not you posess the math skills necessary to realize it.

Further posts on your part will be answered with the paragraph above. You know and I know, (or maybe you really don't know) that no such carpet permission exists in physics to apply algebraic properties in physics and by now it is obvious that you know that no evidence of backradiation exists or you would have already posted a link to it.

 

[gslack]

I wish this board software allowed the use of mathematical code in posts. It would make writing equations out a breeze. you could simply place <code> brackets and then use {%RHO} or {%EPSILON} and it would show as P or E..

Trying to show correct mathematical symbols in standard text using a keyboard is a pain in the ass.. I appreciate what ya did, because I do understand what a nuisance it is and what kind of crap idiots like Ian can try and imply from it.. Actual greek symbols, not the closest fit as written on here would eliminate a lot of his excuse making and wiggle room. He knew this and thats why he keeps asking for "your math" again and again. he's hoping to appear the victor by making it too much a pain in the ass to do it again and again..

BTW, I don't know if you are aware but (check your messages in about 2 minutes)

 

[wirebender]

I wish this board software allowed the use of mathematical code in posts. It would make writing equations out a breeze. you could simply place <code> brackets and then use {%RHO} or {%EPSILON} and it would show as P or E..

Trying to show correct mathematical symbols in standard text using a keyboard is a pain in the ass.. I appreciate what ya did, because I do understand what a nuisance it is and what kind of crap idiots like Ian can try and imply from it.. Actual greek symbols, not the closest fit as written on here would eliminate a lot of his excuse making and wiggle room. He knew this and thats why he keeps asking for "your math" again and again. he's hoping to appear the victor by making it too much a pain in the ass to do it again and again..

BTW, I don't know if you are aware but (check your messages in about 2 minutes)

It wouldn't matter if he and I were at a blackboard and had 50 math and physics texts to reference. He isn't working from a position of math or physics. He has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the math and physics are beyond him already with his repeated very basic errors. He is operating from a position of faith and simply will not see anything that challenges the faith he has placed in those climate scientists he trusts (spencer).

He also gives his lack of confidence away in his constant appeals to the board rather than direct conversation with us. He regularly appeals to the board for some support when he doesn't know what he his talking about.

 

[IanC]

more attempts at delection?

you guys asked me to prove your math wrong. I accept your challenge. back up your case or admit defeat

No douchebag you claimed we were wrong, no one asked you to prove anything.. Don't you dare even try to make that lie stick you incessant little twerp.... YOU DID ALL OF THIS YOU IGNORANT FOOL!!!

No deflection except all the deflections you have done till this point.. I asked you another simple freaking question regarding basic thermodynamics and AGAIN you refuse to answer..

How many basics of physics can you not have any knowledge of BEFORE you come clean or at least let it rest? How many basics of physical science have been unable to explain here now Ian?

Lets review....

1. You didn't know anything about the double-slit experiment in either form I posted examples of, and you even make the implication they were nonsense... They ARE one of the base experiments used in beginning physics classes all over the world and have been for many many years... You not only didn't recognize it, you didn't even deem it a viable experiment at all.. According to whom? The rest of the physics education community or you?

2. You do not understand wave-particle duality and when asked to explain your understanding of its principles you again flatly refused to do so. In fact likening the implications to "magic" at one point.

3. You did not recognize implications in swapping the order of variables in an equation.. its an equation Ian, a mathematical formula the sequence is part and parcel to the formula.. Try baking a cake with that claim once Ian.. tell us how it works out for you...

4. You didn't recognize Fermat's last theorem... Dude seriously? Any physicist or student with any desire to find truth especially BEFORE the "proof" has in the very least spent some time trying to figure it out themselves.. jesus man..

5. You have altered our direct questions to you at every turn, rather than answering what we ask, you try and answer what you wish or want us to ask..

6. When asked even some of the most basic questions you divert, posture and preen like a peacock and google up new terms and altered versions of the original experiment all in the attempt to appear smarter or knowledgeable. And then try and claim we are the ones doing it...

7. Every time Ian does the math you cry for on here you run away for a day or more and then come back with multiple posts in an attempt to bury it under ever more complications that are not only unnecessary and do nothing to counter his math, but only show how little of this you actually do understand.

8. Now you cannot explain backradiation, or back radiation (they are indeed the same thing I have seen both in various physics sites lately) in your own words as pertains to this discussion.. The entire concept of backradiation is the very core of your claims here Ian, if you do understand what you are arguing for or against, you should in the very least be able to explain its core principle in your own words....

There are more, I am just too tired to bother with your childish ignorant ass anymore.. You are a fake, and whats worse a fake who believes his own bullshit online identity now... Pathetic, truly pathetic... You have gone from a bullshit "expert" to an obvious fake and all because you bought into your own lies so much and for so long you forgot where the lies stopped and truth began...

Nice work phony! Take a bow!

1. only in your head do I not know about duality paradoxes. when I brought up a different paradox that was pertinent to the conversation you ignored it and claimed some experiment with mechanical waves in oil was important although pretty much everyone besides you knows that light waves and mechanical waves are fundementally different.

2. the only magic I have mentioned is wirebender's supposed explanation of how IR photons magically disappear between the CO2 molecule and the earth's surface. actually it wasnt an explanation it was only an assertion because he refused to show where or how it happened.

3. mathematical formulae are rearranged to solve the equation for the unknown quantity. some higher order functions that use matrices and vectors need to be done in a specific order but the S-B equation we are discussing is not one of them.

4. Fermat's equation is a fine historic question that took hundreds of years to solve. but it only deals with Number Theory and has no relevance to physics that I know of. my favourite historical question relates to the density of prime numbers. does the value converge to a specific number and is that number in the same family as pi or e. interesting

5. usually when I rephrase your questions it is to bring the conversation back to the topic at hand. you lay down red herrings that I refuse to follow whereas you and wirebender refuse to answer specific, defined questions that are integral to the problem being discussed.

6. actually I google very little. perhaps I should put up more links. I suppose you confuse my describing the physical aspects of a problem as preening but I find the only way to increase my understanding is by actually thinking about the problem rather than just proclaiming your position and doggedly refusing to entertain any further discussion.

7. I assume you meant to say wirebender rather than Ian. I respond when I have the time and have something to say. I prefer not to lay down page after page of ad hominems while adding little to the discussion.

8. I will continue to use the term back radiation simply because it pisses off the two of you. I dont really care what you want to call it. but the radiation going in the opposite direction of the net flow of energy is there. that is why it is taken into account when solving the S-B equations. no amount of hysteria on your part changes the reality of both objects radiating.


when are you guys going to own up to your mistake of using zero degrees Kelvin as the temperature instead of 255K when the thought experiment specifically defined the temperature of the container? I want to move on to the next mistake.

 

[IanC]

how desparate you must be to be reduced to arguing that rearranging terms in a formula is making a case.

Ian, talking to you is like talking to a slightly retarded child. You have to have every single thing explained to you in detail and even after you get the explanation, you still don't get it.

You might start by showing me in the physics literature where it is permissable to randomly apply the distributive property (or any property for that matter) of algebra for phisics problems. To the best of my knowledge, in physics, if you are going to apply an algebraic property then the property must be assigned a physical meaning. In this case it hasn't or if it has, then feel free to point me to the text in the physics literature in which it has. If you had ever taken physics, you would know that you can't simply apply random mathematical properties to equations dealing with physical laws and then say look, they get the same answer so they must be the same. It doesn't work that way in physics.

When you apply the distributive property to the SB law, you describe an entirely different set of physics. The SB law is expressed as p=sigma (T^4 - T^4) which describes an emitter at one temperature emitting into a background at a lower temperature.

When you apply the distributive property to the equation, you are applying the SB law twice which describes a very different thing. By using the distributive property you are describing (sigma T^4) the emitter at its temperature radiating into a background at a lower temperature minus the background (sigma T^4) which, according to SB is also radiating into a background at a lower temperature. Obviously this isn't what is happening. It is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You have the background which is at the lower temperature radiating back to the emitter but to do so you must apply the SB law a second time and claim that now the emitter is at the lower temperature even though we both know that the emitter is at a higher temperature. The answer is the same but one is describing a phyisical process which is observable and repeatable and the other describes a fictional process (backradiation) invented to support AGW alarmism which is not observable and exists neither in nature nor in the laboratory.

I am sorry Ian, but you have made it more than clear that you simply don't posess the requsite math skills, analytical skills, or knowledge of the physical laws to adequately discuss this topic.

If you believe there exists observable, repeatable proof of backradiation, then present it. Failing to do that loses you the argument as my argument stands.

you still havent answered the question. if your math is correct, why do you get the same temperature for the heater whether it is radiating into a zero degree container or a 255 degree container? simple question, asked many times, always ducked.

I answered your question Ian. As I have said, you lack the requsite math and analytical skills to understand what you are being told. Did, or did not spencer state that his experiment was to represent the bars as an analog to earth sitting in space? He said:

One way to demonstrate the concept is with the following thought experiment, which I will model roughly after the Earth suspended in the cold of outer space.

Now Ian, do you think that spencer doesn't realize that space is represented at 0 K or do you think that perhaps spencer doesn't know that space isn't at 0 F? He said cold space and that being the case I am supposing that setting the temp at 0 F was an oversight on his part.

I have answered your question Ian, ad nauseum. Again, sorry that you lack the requsite skills to even realize that you have been answered, much less understand the answer you were given.

When you can show me in the physics literature that it is permissable to apply algebraic properties to physics problems without having first assigned a physical meaning to the property, or you can show observable, repeatable evidence of backradiation, we will have something to talk about. Till that time, you are wrong, and you have been proven wrong whether or not you posess the math skills necessary to realize it.

Further posts on your part will be answered with the paragraph above. You know and I know, (or maybe you really don't know) that no such carpet permission exists in physics to apply algebraic properties in physics and by now it is obvious that you know that no evidence of backradiation exists or you would have already posted a link to it.

does all this dancing around the issue mean that you are finally admitting that you used the wrong temperature for the container? the thought experiment specifically defined it as zero degrees farenheit (255K) and you used (0K). it really is that simple. answer yes or no.

I want to get on to the next mistake but it is impossible until you fix the first mistake and correct your figures downhill from the first mistake. will you correct your figures or not?

if you refuse to fix your math then at least be man enough to admit that you have not proved Spencer wrong. show some integrity, you have been caught making a simple mistake. own up to it and move on

 

[gslack]

More bullshit how surprising....

 

[IanC]

More bullshit how surprising....

as usual, ad homs are your favourite response.

when are you going to admit that you guys made a mistake at the very beginning of the 'math' that supposedly debunked Spencer.

I responded to your eight points (of mostly ad homeninum) and yet you refuse to respond to my specific question asked eight times (or more).