Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[IanC]

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?

I do not have the prerequisite knowledge of phonon production and movement to give anything more than a simplistic description.

likewise, while I believe that radiation is part of the conduction process I have never seen (or understood) any explanation that specifically mentions it. it would certainly be an interesting facet in the understanding of the insulating properties of materials other than metals

 

[SSDD]

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.

I have no clones...not needed..

And you provided no example of back conduction...you provided an example of energy moving from warm to cool at different rates depending on the temperature differential.

 

[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.

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?

You didn't make yourself clear to me. This statement seemed to say that you do think back conduction happens.

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....

 

[SSDD]

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?

Don't know the fundamental mechanism that prevents energy from moving from cool to warm any more than I can describe the fundamental mechanism by which gravity works. Wish I did....there would surely be not only a nobel in it but the possibility of changing that fundamental mechanism.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ummm...........hate to break it to the k00ks but 2 months ago was the coldest February in Canada in recorded history = fAiL.

February 2015 coldest in 115 years CTV Ottawa News

Global what???

 

[IanC]

SSDD- I asked you about Postma's belief that it is possible to have a heated sphere with no temperature gradient, on one of these threads. It seems to be the main assumption of his rebuttal of the shell over sphere problem. Any thoughts?

 

[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?

Don't know the fundamental mechanism that prevents energy from moving from cool to warm any more than I can describe the fundamental mechanism by which gravity works. Wish I did....there would surely be not only a nobel in it but the possibility of changing that fundamental mechanism.

Then can you explain why the speed with which heat energy conducts through matter is dependent on the slope of the thermal gradient?

 

[Wuwei]

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.

The second law involves the flow of heat. You can't define heat without an assemblage of particles. You can't even show the second law is valid without assuming an ensemble of particles. So there is no need to change anything because it already excludes individual particles.

 

[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.

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.

I wonder, would two pieces of wood still ignite if there was some minute substance which prevented the friction between them to create heat? Water vapor is similar to the wood in the molecular size. Creating any minuet amount of space reduces friction and thus heat manifested in our troposphere. One of the main premises of CAGW theroy is that heat production. Tell me why it does not occur. What is stopping it from manifesting?

 

[IanC]

Long chains of cellulose are similar in size to water vapour. You may have explain that in more depth

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I don't care about the photon's reference point, I'm more interested in the "seeing into the future" silliness that your most recent contortion requires.

And you either do believe back conduction can happen or you don't.

As I already said, if you explain how conduction moves energy from hot to cold, I'll clear up your confusion.

 

[IanC]

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.

The universe has an arrow of time. Just because there is no time in the photon's reference that doesn't mean there isn't time and distance in ours.

Conduction is different than plain radiation. The packets of energy are much larger. Conduction is more efficient although it needs matter to propigate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Just because no time passes for the photon doesn't mean no time passed for the rest of us.

^
This

 

[IanC]

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.

I don't care about the photon's reference point, I'm more interested in the "seeing into the future" silliness that your most recent contortion requires.

And you either do believe back conduction can happen or you don't.

As I already said, if you explain how conduction moves energy from hot to cold, I'll clear up your confusion.

Yah, I'd like to hear that too. Although I'm not sure that my confusion would be gone.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

Write down the Lorentz transformation. Try to transform to a new reference frame that is moving at the speed of a photon - simply plug in the velocity of a photon as the velocity of the new reference frame. You will notice that the Lorentz transformation blows up to infinity. It simply doesn't work.

In short if you want to use a reference frame moving at the speed of light, you simply have to reject the Lorentz transformation as having any meaning. Or more accurately, you shouldn't use a reference frame at the speed of light.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD- I asked you about Postma's belief that it is possible to have a heated sphere with no temperature gradient, on one of these threads. It seems to be the main assumption of his rebuttal of the shell over sphere problem. Any thoughts?

I'd have to see his case...never heard of it. Contrary to popular belief, I am not over that way much at all.

 

[SSDD]

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?

Don't know the fundamental mechanism that prevents energy from moving from cool to warm any more than I can describe the fundamental mechanism by which gravity works. Wish I did....there would surely be not only a nobel in it but the possibility of changing that fundamental mechanism.

Then can you explain why the speed with which heat energy conducts through matter is dependent on the slope of the thermal gradient?

The why goes back to the fundamental mechanism which neither I nor you, nor anyone else knows. In order to know why, one must know the fundamental mechanism...we know that it is, but not why it is.

 

[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.

The second law involves the flow of heat. You can't define heat without an assemblage of particles. You can't even show the second law is valid without assuming an ensemble of particles. So there is no need to change anything because it already excludes individual particles.

The second law was written before particles were even hypothetical and it hasn't changed with the advent of theoretical particles. Sorry.

 

[SSDD]

I don't care about the photon's reference point, I'm more interested in the "seeing into the future" silliness that your most recent contortion requires.

Of course you don't...which is why you are still trying to impose time in the form of future on an entity that does not experience time. And are you calling relativity and the Lorentz equations wrong? Again, apply the Lorentz relativity equations to a photon moving at the speed of light...from its point of view, travel time to anywhere is zero and distance is zero. Face it toddster, if you are going to believe in photons then you must believe in them as physics has described them....unless you know something that physics doesn't know.

As I already said, if you explain how conduction moves energy from hot to cold, I'll clear up your confusion.

I told you....I'm not explaining anything to you. It is pointless if it doesn't mesh with your dogma as evidenced by the fact that you are still tying to impose time and distance on a particle that experiences neither. This is apparently over your head. If you wan't to know how energy moves via conduction, I am sure that you can look it up on google. You might also try looking into relativity as well and try and get a grasp on what the universe would be like if you were sitting on a photon.

 

[SSDD]

Yah, I'd like to hear that too. Although I'm not sure that my confusion would be gone.

Not sure what you are confused about. You acknowledge that photons experience neither distance nor time...you acknowledge that zero distance from point A to point B is the same as physical contact....you acknowledge that back conduction doesn't happen. The sticking point seems to be that you can't apply what you accept in that regard and see that it means that what you accept in the back radiation department is a falsehood.