Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[Toddsterpatriot]

The speed of light is not infinite. While a photon may experience no time passing, the rest of the universe does. Events can and do take place while the photon is traveling between points.

Who are you addressing this to Capt Obvious?

SSDD was pointing out that in the photon's frame of reference it always knows where it is going, and what it will find there.

Do you disagree? There is a distinct possibility that this is the genesis of inertia.

SSDD was pointing out that in the photon's frame of reference it always knows where it is going, and what it will find there.

The photon knows the temperature of its target, 100 light years away, 100 years in the future?

 

[IanC]

The speed of light is not infinite. While a photon may experience no time passing, the rest of the universe does. Events can and do take place while the photon is traveling between points.

Who are you addressing this to Capt Obvious?

SSDD was pointing out that in the photon's frame of reference it always knows where it is going, and what it will find there.

Do you disagree? There is a distinct possibility that this is the genesis of inertia.

SSDD was pointing out that in the photon's frame of reference it always knows where it is going, and what it will find there.

The photon knows the temperature of its target, 100 light years away, 100 years in the future?

he thinks so. I dont think the photon ever knows the temperature of its destination. how would it get the information? it's part of his 'rocks roll downhill' argument.


edit- I will say that virtual photons of the electro-magnetic fields do know whether there is a particle to exchange force with, otherwise they simply cease to exist with no exchange of energy. so if all photons are virtual it is possible that they do not continue to exist without checking whether a suitable partner exists. radiative photons do not seem to have all the same properties as virtual photons though.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is why we all disagree with SSDD. He asserts that the SLoT applies to all energy transfers right down to the atomic level, rather than just a statistical description of large numbers of interactions.

I read through a lot of this thread but could find no reason why he could come conceivably think that way. He seems to know physics and thermodynamic terminology but comes to conclusions that are well beyond the norms of physics.

I haven't read all of this thread but I have debated SSDD many times in the past. He comes from the 'Slayers' camp. They distort the definitions of physics to 'prove' that CO2 can have no impact on heat transfer. They just repeat their talking points and refuse to answer embarrassing questions. Google Spencer's 'Yes Virginia' or Willis's 'Shell' to see what I mean. In a way it is good because it sharpens your thinking to refute their points.

I dont think that it is an intentional distortion. IF we simply change basic items in question, which science has not quantified, the position becomes very possible. CO2 has little to do with increasing heat transfer but has everything to do with slowing that same process. It is the slowing of the process in earths atmosphere that is the sticking point for most of us. SSDD's main point, as i understand it, is the convection cycle of our earth is such that CO2 has little or no impact on the rate we warm. IF we were just a CO2 based atmosphere then the LOG formula would rule, but we are a water based atmosphere and it is not restrained by that rate of diminishing return.

The problem with the IPCC and many other theories, is they do not take into consideration that convection cycle. A slight thinning of the atmosphere by CO2 can act as a lubricant or friction reducing property. This is precisely what we are seeing with TOA measurements and LWIR release increase. The proportional increases are linear, suggesting that CO2 is actually increasing the rate of cooling by a secondary and unexpected effect.

IT will take some time to prove or disprove this observations causation.

 

[IanC]

This is why we all disagree with SSDD. He asserts that the SLoT applies to all energy transfers right down to the atomic level, rather than just a statistical description of large numbers of interactions.

I read through a lot of this thread but could find no reason why he could come conceivably think that way. He seems to know physics and thermodynamic terminology but comes to conclusions that are well beyond the norms of physics.

I haven't read all of this thread but I have debated SSDD many times in the past. He comes from the 'Slayers' camp. They distort the definitions of physics to 'prove' that CO2 can have no impact on heat transfer. They just repeat their talking points and refuse to answer embarrassing questions. Google Spencer's 'Yes Virginia' or Willis's 'Shell' to see what I mean. In a way it is good because it sharpens your thinking to refute their points.

I dont think that it is an intentional distortion. IF we simply change basic items in question, which science has not quantified, the position becomes very possible. CO2 has little to do with increasing heat transfer but has everything to do with slowing that same process. It is the slowing of the process in earths atmosphere that is the sticking point for most of us. SSDD's main point, as i understand it, is the convection cycle of our earth is such that CO2 has little or no impact on the rate we warm. IF we were just a CO2 based atmosphere then the LOG formula would rule, but we are a water based atmosphere and it is not restrained by that rate of diminishing return.

The problem with the IPCC and many other theories, is they do not take into consideration that convection cycle. A slight thinning of the atmosphere by CO2 can act as a lubricant or friction reducing property. This is precisely what we are seeing with TOA measurements and LWIR release increase. The proportional increases are linear, suggesting that CO2 is actually increasing the rate of cooling by a secondary and unexpected effect.

IT will take some time to prove or disprove this observations causation.

Hahaha. Are you trying to outdo SSDD in the wacko theory department?

Sorry, I shouldn't be so quick to dismiss. Please tell us more.

 

[SSDD]

Are you suggesting, as you did with radiation, that the cold end of the bar knows the temperature of the hot end and refuses to conduct in that direction?

Im not suggesting any knowledge at all but i am saying that energy won't conduct from the cooler portion of the bar to the warmer portion of the bar. If you are claiming back conduction you truly are an idiot.

 

[SSDD]

I didn't read any of this thread until today.

I agree with SSDD that photons don't 'experience' time or distance. But there are two types of photons. Radiative photons that are created to shed energy (light) and reactive photons that transfer force in magnetic or electrical fields. Reactive photons are virtual, and do not have to conserve the usual properties, and they have the property of being additive or subtractive, but they have to have a partner to exist.

I think its funny that SSDD flips from disbelieving in photons to believing in their most esoteric qualities

As I have said, I don't think photons exist...I believe it is al EM waves with properties that we don't yet understand...but if you are going to believe in photons, then you have to grant them their own point of view and accept that the universe looks a lot different to a photon than it does to us...no matter which direction a photon may go, it is there in zero time and has travelled zero distance to get there and therefore, energy transfer via radiation is no different from energy transfer via direct contact...ie conduction.

 

[SSDD]

The speed of light is not infinite. While a photon may experience no time passing, the rest of the universe does. Events can and do take place while the photon is traveling between points.

So you are going to deny relativity and the Lorentz relativity equations as well? No matter where a photon is going, the time it takes it to get there and the distance it travels is zero.

Tell me crick, if you could actually see a photon from its point of origin, on its way to wherever, what do you think it would look like...according to physics?

 

[SSDD]

I don't understand your point. Anywhere in the universe energy is flying all over the place. The second law doesn't say anything about what individual particles can do. It only tells what can and cannot happen in large ensembles of interacting particles, ie. the nature of heat.

Read the second law...it doesn't restrict itself to large assemblages of anything...the second law is an absolute statement. Let me know when it gets changed to exclude individual particles if, individual particles (photons) in fact exist.

 

[SSDD]

The speed of light is not infinite. While a photon may experience no time passing, the rest of the universe does. Events can and do take place while the photon is traveling between points.

Who are you addressing this to Capt Obvious?

SSDD was pointing out that in the photon's frame of reference it always knows where it is going, and what it will find there.

Do you disagree? There is a distinct possibility that this is the genesis of inertia.

I am terribly glad that I have finally found a way to explain my position such that you don't think some sort of intelligence is required on the part of the photon.

 

[SSDD]

So now you do believe that energy will conduct from cold to warm....ie back conduction. I am afraid that it is you who is confused toddster. No more explanation is needed as to why than the second law...neither heat nor energy will move from cold to warm without some work being done to accomplish the movement.

I don't understand your point. Anywhere in the universe energy is flying all over the place. The second law doesn't say anything about what individual particles can do. It only tells what can and cannot happen in large ensembles of interacting particles, ie. the nature of heat.

This is why we all disagree with SSDD. He asserts that the SLoT applies to all energy transfers right down to the atomic level, rather than just a statistical description of large numbers of interactions.

So Ian, given that from a photon's reference point it sees every possible destination as if it were in physical contact...ie zero time zero distance, do you agree that the rules for radiative transfer of energy should be very much the same as the rules for energy transfer via conduction? If not what is the difference between physical contact and zero time zero distance between bodies?

I guess I should ask if you think energy can migrate from cool to warm via conduction.

 

[IanC]

joe postma believes that you can 'seed' a sphere with point power sources in such a way that you can create an even temperature differential from centre to surface. do you also believe this?

it is the core assumption in his rebuttal of willis's shell thought experiment. that heat can pass through objects without needing to have a temperature differential.

 

[SSDD]

This is why we all disagree with SSDD. He asserts that the SLoT applies to all energy transfers right down to the atomic level, rather than just a statistical description of large numbers of interactions.

I read through a lot of this thread but could find no reason why he could come conceivably think that way. He seems to know physics and thermodynamic terminology but comes to conclusions that are well beyond the norms of physics.

I haven't read all of this thread but I have debated SSDD many times in the past. He comes from the 'Slayers' camp. They distort the definitions of physics to 'prove' that CO2 can have no impact on heat transfer. They just repeat their talking points and refuse to answer embarrassing questions. Google Spencer's 'Yes Virginia' or Willis's 'Shell' to see what I mean. In a way it is good because it sharpens your thinking to refute their points.

Maybe I have hit on a way to describe what I have been trying to say all along. Some while back, I made this observation and you mentioned that a photon exists at every point between its origin and its destination....something clicked and that led me to dig into what that might look like and I found the zero time and zero distance element as described by the Lorentz relativity equations. Zero time and zero distance is no different from physical contact and so far I haven't found anyone who suggests that back conduction is possible.

 

[SSDD]

Did I say that? Where? Link?
If you can't explain how conduction works, I can't point out your confusion.

I am not playing you game any longer. Either you accept that from the photon's reference point, there is zero time and zero distance to any possible destination which is the same as physical contact or you reject relativity and the Lorentz relativity equations.

And you either do believe back conduction can happen or you don't. If you don't then the above should put an end to your thoughts of back radiation....if you do believe back conduction is possible...then you are a true wacko...enough said.

 

[SSDD]

This is why we all disagree with SSDD. He asserts that the SLoT applies to all energy transfers right down to the atomic level, rather than just a statistical description of large numbers of interactions.

I read through a lot of this thread but could find no reason why he could come conceivably think that way. He seems to know physics and thermodynamic terminology but comes to conclusions that are well beyond the norms of physics.

I haven't read all of this thread but I have debated SSDD many times in the past. He comes from the 'Slayers' camp. They distort the definitions of physics to 'prove' that CO2 can have no impact on heat transfer. They just repeat their talking points and refuse to answer embarrassing questions. Google Spencer's 'Yes Virginia' or Willis's 'Shell' to see what I mean. In a way it is good because it sharpens your thinking to refute their points.

I dont think that it is an intentional distortion. IF we simply change basic items in question, which science has not quantified, the position becomes very possible. CO2 has little to do with increasing heat transfer but has everything to do with slowing that same process. It is the slowing of the process in earths atmosphere that is the sticking point for most of us. SSDD's main point, as i understand it, is the convection cycle of our earth is such that CO2 has little or no impact on the rate we warm. IF we were just a CO2 based atmosphere then the LOG formula would rule, but we are a water based atmosphere and it is not restrained by that rate of diminishing return.

The problem with the IPCC and many other theories, is they do not take into consideration that convection cycle. A slight thinning of the atmosphere by CO2 can act as a lubricant or friction reducing property. This is precisely what we are seeing with TOA measurements and LWIR release increase. The proportional increases are linear, suggesting that CO2 is actually increasing the rate of cooling by a secondary and unexpected effect.

IT will take some time to prove or disprove this observations causation.

I see all radiative gas molecules except water vapor not as a blanket that keeps us warm, but holes in that blanket that allow the atmosphere to radiatively cool itself. If there were no radiative gasses in our atmosphere except water vapor, the planet would be warmer.

 

[IanC]

So now you do believe that energy will conduct from cold to warm....ie back conduction. I am afraid that it is you who is confused toddster. No more explanation is needed as to why than the second law...neither heat nor energy will move from cold to warm without some work being done to accomplish the movement.

I don't understand your point. Anywhere in the universe energy is flying all over the place. The second law doesn't say anything about what individual particles can do. It only tells what can and cannot happen in large ensembles of interacting particles, ie. the nature of heat.

This is why we all disagree with SSDD. He asserts that the SLoT applies to all energy transfers right down to the atomic level, rather than just a statistical description of large numbers of interactions.

So Ian, given that from a photon's reference point it sees every possible destination as if it were in physical contact...ie zero time zero distance, do you agree that the rules for radiative transfer of energy should be very much the same as the rules for energy transfer via conduction? If not what is the difference between physical contact and zero time zero distance between bodies?

I guess I should ask if you think energy can migrate from cool to warm via conduction.

every point along a straight line (from its perspective).

why are you trying to conflate radiation with the much more complicated conduction? if you are asking me whether I think radiation (in all directions) is part of the conduction process, then yes I do. I see no physical processes that prohibit energy release but I think phonons have a quasi-matter like property that prohibits two of them occupying the same space (edit- at the same time). in much the same way as electrons flow through a wire according to net force because they have physical restrictions that disallow them from being in the same space (edit- at the same time) or travelling through each other. edit- photons do not have this restriction, they can exist in the same space at the same time and they can pass through each other with no transfer of energy.

 

[SSDD]

every point along a straight line (from its perspective).

What about when the path is bent due to a gravity field? Does the photon cease to exist along whatever curve it takes until it gets back on a straight line?

why are you trying to conflate radiation with the much more complicated conduction? if you are asking me whether I think radiation (in all directions) is part of the conduction process, then yes I do. I see no physical processes that prohibit energy release but I think phonons have a quasi-matter like property that prohibits two of them occupying the same space. in much the same way as electrons flow through a wire according to net force because they have physical restrictions that disallow them from being in the same space or travelling through each other.

So you believe back conduction can happen? You think energy can move from a cool body to a warm body that is in contact with it?Any examples?

And I am not trying to conflate anything....if there is zero time and zero distance between the point of origin of a photon and its destination, then how is that different from physical contact.

 

[Crick]

You missed the whole point of special relativity. The universe does not have a single clock. Just because no time passes for the photon doesn't mean no time passed for the rest of us.

And the some understanding of the other relativity would have made it clear to you that an object traveling a line bent by a gravitational field IS traveling in a straight line. You need a better grip on space time.

PS, I provided you (or one of your clones) a clear example of back conduction.

 

[Crick]

Imagine orbiting a black hole at the event horizon. Could you see any curvature in your path? No. It'd look as straight as straight could be as far as you looked. What would you see if you looked straight ahead of you with a powerful telescope? You'd see your own ass.

 

[IanC]

every point along a straight line (from its perspective).

What about when the path is bent due to a gravity field? Does the photon cease to exist along whatever curve it takes until it gets back on a straight line?

why are you trying to conflate radiation with the much more complicated conduction? if you are asking me whether I think radiation (in all directions) is part of the conduction process, then yes I do. I see no physical processes that prohibit energy release but I think phonons have a quasi-matter like property that prohibits two of them occupying the same space. in much the same way as electrons flow through a wire according to net force because they have physical restrictions that disallow them from being in the same space or travelling through each other.

So you believe back conduction can happen? You think energy can move from a cool body to a warm body that is in contact with it?Any examples?

And I am not trying to conflate anything....if there is zero time and zero distance between the point of origin of a photon and its destination, then how is that different from physical contact.

was I not specific enough when I said 'from the photon's perspective'? the photon does not recognize distortions due to gravity, it moves in a straight line. space curvature is a relative thing.

I just told you that I dont think back conduction happens, and gave you the reason why I dont think it happens, and now you are accusing me of saying the opposite. you are as bad as crick. conduction is different than radiation, didnt you know?

 

[Crick]

I just told you that I dont think back conduction happens, and gave you the reason why I dont think it happens, and now you are accusing me of saying the opposite. you are as bad as crick. conduction is different than radiation, didnt you know?

Let's look at an iron atom in a bar of steel. This atom has some thermal energy and so is vibrating every which way it can. What do you believe prevents it from transferring that vibrational energy through the bonds with neighboring atoms that have a slightly higher temperature?