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.
sureCan you prove it?the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?
Nice!!!!
JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.
the electrostatic field
Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?
what was so difficult there?
Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.
right after you prove they hit.
You need proof that photons hit matter?
sureCan you prove it?the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.
the electrostatic field
Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?
what was so difficult there?
Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.
right after you prove they hit.
You need proof that photons hit matter?
right? because you can't.sureCan you prove it?the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?
the electrostatic field
Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?
what was so difficult there?
Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.
right after you prove they hit.
You need proof that photons hit matter?
Maybe Bob can help you?
right? because you can't.sureCan you prove it?the electrostatic field
Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?
what was so difficult there?
Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.
right after you prove they hit.
You need proof that photons hit matter?
Maybe Bob can help you?
I'd use that excuse tooright? because you can't.sureCan you prove it?
right after you prove they hit.
You need proof that photons hit matter?
Maybe Bob can help you?
I am having a hard time talking down to your level.
"forbidden"? Don`t you think that`s stretching it a bit too far?Your rant is meaningless unless you know a physical principle on how particles or EM energy from a colder source are forbidden from hitting a warmer object?[
They consider the 2nd law refers to net energy flow. Have you changed your mind about Georgia State being top shelf?
Still no observation or measurement of two way energy flow?...guess not....still an untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical model and that's all it will ever be...
.
I don't think you have been following SSDD's posts, and my retorts carefully."forbidden"? Don`t you think that`s stretching it a bit too far?
I have not read all of SSDD`s posts but I never seen him say that in any of the ones I did read.
Every time the radiative heat transfer from a cold to a warm body is discussed you stop the process at the point that implies that the warm body must have gotten (just then) warmer from the photons the colder body emitted. So at that instant when the warmer body got warmer the colder one must have gotten colder also...which is absurd unless you can cite an example where a hot body can cool a colder one. That would be so If radiative heat transfer were a series of sequential events in the way you try to make your case.
In reality it is continuous and can not be isolated as an event series.
It is also a reality that a colder body surrounded by a warmer gas does not warm that gas any warmer. In fact the warmer gas masks the colder body`s IR image from being seen in the overall thermal image.
But according to you the IR image should show a hot spot in the gas the Imaging device is looking at
The EM field of a black hole is capable of capturing and redirecting all photons. Observed empirical fact. So why is it not capable of causing a photon travel path to change? Or to redirect it?the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?That is really very mangled science. Virtually every sentence above is totally meaningless. I mean every sentence.
Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..
Do you understand what bonds atoms together?
Nice!!!!
JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.
the electrostatic field
Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?
what was so difficult there?
Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.
The EM field of a black hole is capable of capturing and redirecting all photons. Observed empirical fact. So why is it not capable of causing a photon travel path to change? Or to redirect it?the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?Enjoy your ignorance.. Read up on EM fields..
Do you understand what bonds atoms together?
Nice!!!!
JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.
the electrostatic field
Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?
what was so difficult there?
Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.
I'm not the one having issues with Quantum Mechanics.. Or the whys of the Second law.
SSDD thinks two bodies at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other.I don't think you have been following SSDD's posts, and my retorts carefully."forbidden"? Don`t you think that`s stretching it a bit too far?
I have not read all of SSDD`s posts but I never seen him say that in any of the ones I did read.
Every time the radiative heat transfer from a cold to a warm body is discussed you stop the process at the point that implies that the warm body must have gotten (just then) warmer from the photons the colder body emitted. So at that instant when the warmer body got warmer the colder one must have gotten colder also...which is absurd unless you can cite an example where a hot body can cool a colder one. That would be so If radiative heat transfer were a series of sequential events in the way you try to make your case.
In reality it is continuous and can not be isolated as an event series.
It is also a reality that a colder body surrounded by a warmer gas does not warm that gas any warmer. In fact the warmer gas masks the colder body`s IR image from being seen in the overall thermal image.
But according to you the IR image should show a hot spot in the gas the Imaging device is looking at
You are totally wrong if you think I said a hot body can cool a colder one.
SSDD thinks two bodies at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other. Science believes both objects radiate equal amounts of energy toward each other.
If not at the same temperature, SSDD thinks radiation from the colder object is forbidden from hitting the hotter object, and only the hotter object can radiate.
The discussion now focuses on the fact that it is up to SSDD to explain what physical principle prevents the colder body from radiating the amount that black body theory says it should.
Again let me emphasize my point that two bodies always radiate toward each other, but with the constraint that the hotter body always radiates more to the colder body than it receives from the colder body.
I am following well known science principles that were known for 150 years. If you think I'm not then you misunderstand my posts.
.
Science believes both objects radiate equal amounts of energy toward each other.I don't think you have been following SSDD's posts, and my retorts carefully."forbidden"? Don`t you think that`s stretching it a bit too far?
I have not read all of SSDD`s posts but I never seen him say that in any of the ones I did read.
Every time the radiative heat transfer from a cold to a warm body is discussed you stop the process at the point that implies that the warm body must have gotten (just then) warmer from the photons the colder body emitted. So at that instant when the warmer body got warmer the colder one must have gotten colder also...which is absurd unless you can cite an example where a hot body can cool a colder one. That would be so If radiative heat transfer were a series of sequential events in the way you try to make your case.
In reality it is continuous and can not be isolated as an event series.
It is also a reality that a colder body surrounded by a warmer gas does not warm that gas any warmer. In fact the warmer gas masks the colder body`s IR image from being seen in the overall thermal image.
But according to you the IR image should show a hot spot in the gas the Imaging device is looking at
You are totally wrong if you think I said a hot body can cool a colder one.
SSDD thinks two bodies at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other. Science believes both objects radiate equal amounts of energy toward each other.
If not at the same temperature, SSDD thinks radiation from the colder object is forbidden from hitting the hotter object, and only the hotter object can radiate.
The discussion now focuses on the fact that it is up to SSDD to explain what physical principle prevents the colder body from radiating the amount that black body theory says it should.
Again let me emphasize my point that two bodies always radiate toward each other, but with the constraint that the hotter body always radiates more to the colder body than it receives from the colder body.
I am following well known science principles that were known for 150 years. If you think I'm not then you misunderstand my posts.
.
SSDD thinks two bodies at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other.
SSDD just answered your question in the previous post.SSDD thinks two bodies at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other.
Did he really? Unfortunately Google does not crawl the USMB to the extent where I can specifically search for that. So either you or SSDD should link me to that statement.
The same goes for SSDD thinks radiation from the colder object is forbidden from hitting the hotter object, and only the hotter object can radiate.
I don''t see your problem with the second sentence. The warmer body is always losing heat to the colder body. It is not being warmed. However the colder body does slow the loss of energy of the warmer body. That is what GHG back radiation does - slows the loss of energy from the Earth surface.Again let me emphasize my point that two bodies always radiate toward each other, but with the constraint that the hotter body always radiates more to the colder body than it receives from the colder body.
Of course that is correct but then you also implicitly stated that the colder body does not make the warmer body any warmer...which is at the heart of this war of words.
Of course you are correct. But SSDD does not agree with everything you say.The photons which are radiated by both bodies are not "marked" photons like the marked photons in a quantum eraser, so it follows that it is a fallacy to follow up on what happens to a singular photon which had been radiated from cold to warm.
But that`s how the question was framed in almost all the arguments concerning radiation and the second law of thermodynamics.
Once both of the 2 bodies are at equilibrium there is no way to reverse engineer the sum of the energy quanta and re-trace how much of the energy content on the warmer body came from the colder one.
Like challenging someone to answer a question that has no answer"so what happened to the photons from the colder body?" and invoke Zugzwang.
But for the warmer to colder (body) energy transfer you can say that the source of the additional energy on the previously colder body was the warmer one.
Of course you are correct. But SSDD does not agree with everything you say.
One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.
The IPCC, in its very first report, hypothesized that a loop of energy would occur if CO2 levels continued to rise. This energy loop would have to manifest itself in our lower troposphere as that is where water vapor resides and where the heat would be self feeding due to CO2 concentration. The IPCC also theorized that water vapor would act as a force multiplier and at some point a tipping point would be reached where we could not return and out of control warming would occur.
The IPCC hypothesis has many problems to deal with. The first is the fact that global CO2 levels have been in excess of 7,000ppm for millions of years while earths temperatures have never deviated from its 12 deg C range. This leads to the obvious question, why? Why didn't these levels of CO2 reach a tipping point and the earths temp runaway? The answer is simple, WATER in its various forms.
Water acts as a negative forcing in direct conflict to the IPCC hypothesis. Recent papers have shown that the base LOG forcing of CO2 is being blunted by water in our atmosphere. Where we should have seen 2 deg C in warming, due to CO2 alone, we have seen less than 0.6 deg C.
When we look at the lower troposphere and how the energy exchange actually works we find out why the 'hot spot' does not exist.
Graph Source
This graph above shows where the hot spot should have manifested itself. Between the ground and cloud top. CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface. But its not occurring how they imagined it. They imagined that the energy would be absorbed by the surface and then re-emited to the water and CO2 in the atmosphere, which would again force it back towards the surface Creating a endless loop of sustaining heat.
The problem comes when water/water vapor absorbs the energy. Unlike CO2 which almost instantaneously re-emits its energy without energy loss, water absorbs the energy and heats itself using some of the energy. Water holds its energy significantly longer than CO2 and the water cools as it rises. The water emits its energy in a much longer wavelength (12-36um) that CO2 is helpless to absorb and is then lost to space.
The AGW energy loop is smashed to bits in the first 150 feet above the ground.
More on how this works tomorrow....
Of course you are correct. But SSDD does not agree with everything you say.
Correct according to what?...the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model?...certainly not based on any measurement or observation.
Works fine on my computer.. Seems you have one that blocks any content that doesn't fit your political agenda.. (Yahoo blocks content they feel is detrimental to their political agenda)One of the primary Anthroprogenic Global Warming problems is the theoretical "Bottle Neck" in our lower troposphere and its failure to manifest itself.
The IPCC, in its very first report, hypothesized that a loop of energy would occur if CO2 levels continued to rise. This energy loop would have to manifest itself in our lower troposphere as that is where water vapor resides and where the heat would be self feeding due to CO2 concentration. The IPCC also theorized that water vapor would act as a force multiplier and at some point a tipping point would be reached where we could not return and out of control warming would occur.
The IPCC hypothesis has many problems to deal with. The first is the fact that global CO2 levels have been in excess of 7,000ppm for millions of years while earths temperatures have never deviated from its 12 deg C range. This leads to the obvious question, why? Why didn't these levels of CO2 reach a tipping point and the earths temp runaway? The answer is simple, WATER in its various forms.
Water acts as a negative forcing in direct conflict to the IPCC hypothesis. Recent papers have shown that the base LOG forcing of CO2 is being blunted by water in our atmosphere. Where we should have seen 2 deg C in warming, due to CO2 alone, we have seen less than 0.6 deg C.
When we look at the lower troposphere and how the energy exchange actually works we find out why the 'hot spot' does not exist.
Graph Source
This graph above shows where the hot spot should have manifested itself. Between the ground and cloud top. CO2 is supposed to re-emit radiation in the 6-12um band wavelengths towards the surface. But its not occurring how they imagined it. They imagined that the energy would be absorbed by the surface and then re-emited to the water and CO2 in the atmosphere, which would again force it back towards the surface Creating a endless loop of sustaining heat.
The problem comes when water/water vapor absorbs the energy. Unlike CO2 which almost instantaneously re-emits its energy without energy loss, water absorbs the energy and heats itself using some of the energy. Water holds its energy significantly longer than CO2 and the water cools as it rises. The water emits its energy in a much longer wavelength (12-36um) that CO2 is helpless to absorb and is then lost to space.
The AGW energy loop is smashed to bits in the first 150 feet above the ground.
More on how this works tomorrow....
Your "graph source" doesn't seem to be authorized by yahoo.
I guess in order to deny science you have to make up garbage and post fake unsourced links
Too funny; Denial from a luke-warmer.. I guess covailaint bonds (magnetic holds) cant change a photons direction of travel..The EM field of a black hole is capable of capturing and redirecting all photons. Observed empirical fact. So why is it not capable of causing a photon travel path to change? Or to redirect it?the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?
Nice!!!!
JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.
the electrostatic field
Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?
what was so difficult there?
Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.
I'm not the one having issues with Quantum Mechanics.. Or the whys of the Second law.
The EM field of a black hole is capable of capturing
Dude, you claimed an EM field prevents photons from striking matter warmer than the photon source.
Unless you meant anti-gravity, your claim had nothing to do with black holes. Try again?
I'm not the one having issues with Quantum Mechanics..
Obviously, you are. Though not as many as SSDD.
Or the whys of the Second law.
Clarify your position.
Does matter cease emitting if nearby matter is warmer? If nearby matter is the same temp?
Too funny; Denial from a luke-warmer.. I guess covailaint bonds (magnetic holds) cant change a photons direction of travel..The EM field of a black hole is capable of capturing and redirecting all photons. Observed empirical fact. So why is it not capable of causing a photon travel path to change? Or to redirect it?the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?JC, maybe you can help Bob?
Explain how EM fields stop photons emitted by 100K matter from hitting matter at 101K.
the electrostatic field
Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?
what was so difficult there?
Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.
I'm not the one having issues with Quantum Mechanics.. Or the whys of the Second law.
The EM field of a black hole is capable of capturing
Dude, you claimed an EM field prevents photons from striking matter warmer than the photon source.
Unless you meant anti-gravity, your claim had nothing to do with black holes. Try again?
I'm not the one having issues with Quantum Mechanics..
Obviously, you are. Though not as many as SSDD.
Or the whys of the Second law.
Clarify your position.
Does matter cease emitting if nearby matter is warmer? If nearby matter is the same temp?
Again, right after you show that a photon will hit it.Too funny; Denial from a luke-warmer.. I guess covailaint bonds (magnetic holds) cant change a photons direction of travel..The EM field of a black hole is capable of capturing and redirecting all photons. Observed empirical fact. So why is it not capable of causing a photon travel path to change? Or to redirect it?the electrostatic field. what was so difficult there?
the electrostatic field
Photons are repelled by an electrostatic field? Can you prove it?
what was so difficult there?
Measuring the depth of your misunderstanding.
I'm not the one having issues with Quantum Mechanics.. Or the whys of the Second law.
The EM field of a black hole is capable of capturing
Dude, you claimed an EM field prevents photons from striking matter warmer than the photon source.
Unless you meant anti-gravity, your claim had nothing to do with black holes. Try again?
I'm not the one having issues with Quantum Mechanics..
Obviously, you are. Though not as many as SSDD.
Or the whys of the Second law.
Clarify your position.
Does matter cease emitting if nearby matter is warmer? If nearby matter is the same temp?
Denial from a luke-warmer..
I deny your silly EM field claim.
I guess covailaint bonds (magnetic holds) cant change a photons direction of travel..
I guess if they could, you could post proof?
When you get a chance, show how matter at 101K can repel photons from 100K matter.
