Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You claimed matter ceases to emit, just because it is near matter of the same temperature.
Who would be dumb enough to assume the only factor in the temperature was the greenhouse effect?
Oh, right. LOL!
You are making a claim that no scientist over the last 100 years believes, and you don't know why you make that claim. That is weird.What I thought....I never claimed to know why energy doesn't move from cool to warm...I just said that it did.
You claimed matter ceases to emit, just because it is near matter of the same temperature.
Nope...that claim is yours and Ian's...like the whole "smart photon" thing belongs to rocks...My position is the SB equation...nothing more nothing less.
Who would be dumb enough to assume the only factor in the temperature was the greenhouse effect?
Oh, right. LOL!
Guess that's toddster speak for "you are right SSDD...I can't do the math....I just thought I would toss out a smart assed one liner and never expected to be called on my math skills.
What scientists know is that there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon. That's weird.You are making a claim that no scientist over the last 100 years believes, and you don't know why you make that claim. That is weird.What I thought....I never claimed to know why energy doesn't move from cool to warm...I just said that it did.
What is weird is that every scientist according to you believes an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over every observation and measurement ever made....damned strange. Guess that is post modern science for you.
What scientists know is that there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon. That's weird.
Here's some quick math demolishing SSDD's pseudoscience fantasy.
According to wiki, Uranus radiates significantly less net heat (per square meter) than earth. (net heat = total heat radiated - absorbed solar energy).
Uranus - Wikipedia
---
Uranus's internal heat appears markedly lower than that of the other giant planets; in astronomical terms, it has a low thermal flux.[17][68] Why Uranus's internal temperature is so low is still not understood. Neptune, which is Uranus's near twin in size and composition, radiates 2.61 times as much energy into space as it receives from the Sun,[17] but Uranus radiates hardly any excess heat at all. The total power radiated by Uranus in the far infrared (i.e. heat) part of the spectrum is 1.06 ± 0.08 times the solar energy absorbed in its atmosphere.[12][69] Uranus's heat flux is only 0.042 ± 0.047 W/m2, which is lower than the internal heat flux of Earth of about 0.075 W/m2.[69] The lowest temperature recorded in Uranus's tropopause is 49 K (−224 °C), making Uranus the coldest planet in the Solar System.[
---
However, Uranus has a much thicker atmosphere than earth. Since SSDD's loopy theory says that it's the amount of the gravity-induced pressure gradient that creates heat, and Uranus has a far, far larger such gradient, then Uranus should be generating far more such heat than earth.
But no, the opposite happens.
Hence, SSDD's kook theory is conclusively proven, by the math, to be totally delusional.
What scientists know at this point is far far more than you can possibly understand. What scientists have are a lot of observable, testable, measurable mathematical models that predict observable, testable, measurable phenomena to an unprecedented accuracy of parts per billion. Can your theory do that?What scientists "know" at this point is far less than you believe that they know...What scientists have is a lot of unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.
Right, you know nothing about radiation transfer. Science does know and does not agree with your unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable idea of the second law, or radiation equilibrium, etc.As to my not knowing what the basic mechanism for energy transfer is...big deal...no one in science knows.
Maybe at some point, you will admit to yourself that you know nothing about modern science and will have spent your life uselessly trolling.maybe at some point, you will realize that you have spent your life waiting for the great pumpkin to show up.
Hey SSDD that is a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. Furthermore your mathematical model is wrong. A lot of your planets fail being "ideal". The fact that it's called the ideal gas law should have given you a clue. Try redoing your analysis using the van der Waal equation.PV = nRT
Hey SSDD that is a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. Furthermore your mathematical model is wrong. A lot of your planets fail being "ideal". The fact that it's called the ideal gas law should have given you a clue. Try redoing your analysis using the van der Waal equation.PV = nRT
When does ideal gas law fail? | Socratic
The ideal gas law "fails" when the pressure is high, the volume is low, the temperature is low, or there are significant intermolecular forces..
Yes, all that testing...testing....testing...testing... showed flaws in the ideal gas law and led to the van der Waal equation. The models in radiation physics were also done with testing...testing....testing...testing... they exhibit impeccable accuracy.Of course it is...but it is something that the models you believe in isn't ...it is observable, measurable, quantifiable...and most important...testable...it is the result of observation...experiment....and testing...testing....testing...testing...and that is how it became law...completely unlike the models you put so much trust in.
Please cite a NASA source that says they believe the ideal gas law to be sufficient.that tells us that NASA believes the ideal gas law to be sufficient for all the planets
Not much math there hairball...and certainly none by you supporting your claims...
Here...have a look at some math that leaves nothing to guesswork and fudge factors.
In a near-ideal situation, that equation has to hold regardless of whether there's a greenhouse effect or not. So, congratulations, you proved that gases tend to obey the ideal gas law. Being that nothing in the greenhouse theory says gases don't obey the ideal gas law, your exercise has no bearing on the validity of greenhouse theory.PV = nRT
Please cite a NASA source that says they believe the ideal gas law to be sufficient.
In a near-ideal situation, that equation has to hold regardless of whether there's a greenhouse effect or not. So, congratulations, you proved that gases tend to obey the ideal gas law. Being that nothing in the greenhouse theory says gases don't obey the ideal gas law, your exercise has no bearing on the validity of greenhouse theory.PV = nRT
Except...hairball...that NASA uses the ideal gas equations to estimate the temperatures on the planets...
You forgot to give me the source where NASA uses the ideal gas law to explain the atmospheres.Like I said...look at any NASA data sheet for the planets...and plug in the numbers....they all use the ideal gas law.
You forgot to give me the source where NASA uses the ideal gas law to explain the atmospheres.Like I said...look at any NASA data sheet for the planets...and plug in the numbers....they all use the ideal gas law.
Simple observation..... is all that is necessary.... One method fails every time and the other does not... simple science.Yes, all that testing...testing....testing...testing... showed flaws in the ideal gas law and led to the van der Waal equation. The models in radiation physics were also done with testing...testing....testing...testing... they exhibit impeccable accuracy.Of course it is...but it is something that the models you believe in isn't ...it is observable, measurable, quantifiable...and most important...testable...it is the result of observation...experiment....and testing...testing....testing...testing...and that is how it became law...completely unlike the models you put so much trust in.
Please cite a NASA source that says they believe the ideal gas law to be sufficient.that tells us that NASA believes the ideal gas law to be sufficient for all the planets
Just as I thought. You were trying to put words into NASA's mouth.If you are looking for words from NASA that say "we are using the ideal gas laws to predict the temperatures of planets"...I suppose you would be out of luck...and if you like, you can imagine that it is just coincidence that the NASA fact sheets happen to jibe with the figures that the ideal gas laws predict.
According to your NASA reference.Jupiter (at 1 bar)
P= 1000
well it's obvious that one would go with the one that fails. It's the libturd mainstay. failure.Simple observation..... is all that is necessary.... One method fails every time and the other does not... simple science.Yes, all that testing...testing....testing...testing... showed flaws in the ideal gas law and led to the van der Waal equation. The models in radiation physics were also done with testing...testing....testing...testing... they exhibit impeccable accuracy.Of course it is...but it is something that the models you believe in isn't ...it is observable, measurable, quantifiable...and most important...testable...it is the result of observation...experiment....and testing...testing....testing...testing...and that is how it became law...completely unlike the models you put so much trust in.
Please cite a NASA source that says they believe the ideal gas law to be sufficient.that tells us that NASA believes the ideal gas law to be sufficient for all the planets
According to your NASA reference.
Jovian Atmosphere
Surface Pressure: >>1000 bars
Finally the formulas are looking at only one point in the atmosphere. That is meaningless as far as a theory of planetary physics is concerned.
On the earth you still have to consider that the surface of the earth is pumping out 400W/m^2 while receiving 160W/m^2. An ideal gas law does not take that into consideration.
