We Knew Warmers Were Wacko...But Really?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are they talking about smart photons now?

Interesting....trying to derail a thread with your theory that things must be "smart" in order to obey the laws of physics. Why not start a thread if you feel you must get it off your chest?

Interesting....trying to derail a thread with your theory

Smart particles is your hypothesis..not mine...and if they aren't the topic of the OP, then sure it is to derail a thread

Smart particles is your hypothesis..not mine...

It's your theory that says a photon can never travel from a cooler to a warmer object.
That requires either smart photons or electrons smart enough to know whether or not to emit a photon or smart enough to know in which direction to emit a photon.

So which is it?

 

[SSDD]

Given that the topic of this thread is nothing but ad hominem attacks and prejudice, it could use some derailment.

Talking about the mental state of your priests bothers you?

 

[SSDD]

Are they talking about smart photons now?

Interesting....trying to derail a thread with your theory that things must be "smart" in order to obey the laws of physics. Why not start a thread if you feel you must get it off your chest?

Interesting....trying to derail a thread with your theory

Smart particles is your hypothesis..not mine...and if they aren't the topic of the OP, then sure it is to derail a thread

Smart particles is your hypothesis..not mine...

It's your theory that says a photon can never travel from a cooler to a warmer object.
That requires either smart photons or electrons smart enough to know whether or not to emit a photon or smart enough to know in which direction to emit a photon.

So which is it?

Niether....just requires that they obey the laws of physics. You remain confused regarding the SB law...Of course a radiator radiates equally in every direction if it is in a vacuum at 0 degrees kelvin...but when other objects are present, a different equation is used whereby the amount a radiator radiates is governed by the difference in the radiator and its surroundings. Couldn't be simpler and that is why a different equation is used from that of a radiator in a vacuum at 0 degrees kelvin....set the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings to the same temperature and tell me what P equals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are they talking about smart photons now?

Interesting....trying to derail a thread with your theory that things must be "smart" in order to obey the laws of physics. Why not start a thread if you feel you must get it off your chest?

Interesting....trying to derail a thread with your theory

Smart particles is your hypothesis..not mine...and if they aren't the topic of the OP, then sure it is to derail a thread

Smart particles is your hypothesis..not mine...

It's your theory that says a photon can never travel from a cooler to a warmer object.
That requires either smart photons or electrons smart enough to know whether or not to emit a photon or smart enough to know in which direction to emit a photon.

So which is it?

Niether....just requires that they obey the laws of physics. You remain confused regarding the SB law...Of course a radiator radiates equally in every direction if it is in a vacuum at 0 degrees kelvin...but when other objects are present, a different equation is used whereby the amount a radiator radiates is governed by the difference in the radiator and its surroundings. Couldn't be simpler and that is why a different equation is used from that of a radiator in a vacuum at 0 degrees kelvin....set the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings to the same temperature and tell me what P equals.

Of course a radiator radiates equally in every direction if it is in a vacuum at 0 degrees kelvin

Excellent! I agree!
But wait, what if a warmer object is 1 light year away?
Your theory is this radiator "knows" the temperature of that distant object and won't radiate in that direction.

but when other objects are present, a different equation is used

Actually, the same equation is used, for each object.

Couldn't be simpler

That's why your confusion is so amusing.

set the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings to the same temperature and tell me what P equals

The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

When both temperatures are the same, the object absorbs and radiates the exact same amounts of energy. The net radiation, P, is zero.
Constantly, happily radiating away, and never getting hotter or colder.
As opposed to your claim, that both radiator and surroundings cease radiating altogether. Something only objects at absolute zero would do.

 

[IanC]

Hahahahaha. Officially derailed.

 

[SSDD]

Of course a radiator radiates equally in every direction if it is in a vacuum at 0 degrees kelvin

Excellent! I agree!
But wait, what if a warmer object is 1 light year away?
Your theory is this radiator "knows" the temperature of that distant object and won't radiate in that direction.

Already been through what reality is like for a photon...if they exist. I didn't make up the rules...I just understand them. To a photon, that object a light year away is the same as direct contact...same rules as for conduction. No back conduction...sorry you can't wrap your head around it.

Actually, the same equation is used, for each object.

Actually, it isn't. Perhaps that is part of your problem...not knowing when to apply which equation.

When both temperatures are the same, the object absorbs and radiates the exact same amounts of energy. The net radiation, P, is zero.

Show me any mention of net in the second law of thermodynamics. Failure to do that is.......well.......failure.

 

[SSDD]

Hahahahaha. Officially derailed.

Yeah.....sometimes he is as bad as mammoth. Parents didn't teach him the difference between appropriate conversation....staying on topic....and inappropriate conversation.....changing the topic out of the blue. Very rude...and immature but what can you do with kids these days. Basic failure of manners. You have to blame the parents.

 

[SSDD]

Given that the topic of this thread is nothing but ad hominem attacks and prejudice, it could use some derailment.

Where is the ad hominem or the prejudice? Ad hom is what you are so good at...a topic is presented and you attack the source rather than address the topic....and prejudice? Don't see that one here at all. The topic is that climate scientists are suffering from *snicker** pre traumatic stress syndrome...sorry I just can't help but laugh over that particular string of words and what they imply...nevertheless...that is the topic. I didn't make it up....I just reported it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course a radiator radiates equally in every direction if it is in a vacuum at 0 degrees kelvin

Excellent! I agree!
But wait, what if a warmer object is 1 light year away?
Your theory is this radiator "knows" the temperature of that distant object and won't radiate in that direction.

Already been through what reality is like for a photon...if they exist. I didn't make up the rules...I just understand them. To a photon, that object a light year away is the same as direct contact...same rules as for conduction. No back conduction...sorry you can't wrap your head around it.

Actually, the same equation is used, for each object.

Actually, it isn't. Perhaps that is part of your problem...not knowing when to apply which equation.

When both temperatures are the same, the object absorbs and radiates the exact same amounts of energy. The net radiation, P, is zero.

Show me any mention of net in the second law of thermodynamics. Failure to do that is.......well.......failure.

To a photon, that object a light year away is the same as direct contact..

And, apparently, an object that isn't there now, but will be in a year. Or if the object is cooler now, but in 363 days suddenly becomes warmer..
It's almost as if the photon can predict the future movement of every object in the universe, no matter how far away, as well as the temperature today and far into the future, before it decides whether and which direction it will travel.

Actually, it isn't.

Actually, it is. Use the formula to calculate energy loss for a 100K object with 0K surroundings. Do the same for a 50K object with 0K surroundings.
Now put them next to each other.
Is it a coincidence that the 100K object now loses less energy, the exact reduction perfectly matching the energy the cooler object emitted in the earlier calculation?

Show me any mention of net in the second law of thermodynamics.

As soon as you show me proof that an object above 0K stops radiating when a warmer object is near, or even light years away.
Or even if an object of the same temperature is near.

 

[mamooth]

Yeah.....sometimes he is as bad as mammoth. Parents didn't teach him the difference between appropriate conversation....staying on topic....and inappropriate conversation.....changing the topic out of the blue. Very rude...and immature but what can you do with kids these days. Basic failure of manners. You have to blame the parents.

I don't blame your parents. I blame you for being a squealing coward. That's entirely on you. You deliberately chose to guzzle cult piss by the gallon and self-lobotomize yourself.

Now, what do you plan to do about me calling you out on your pathetic behavior? Maybe cry at me even harder? Because that's worked so well for you in the past.

Why does the dickless brigade think that crying at me will suddenly convince me to go easy on them? They should know by now that it just encourages me. If they're crying, I know I'm hitting a sore spot, and therefore should keep hitting it.

 

[Kosh]

You have to remember that "Climate Change" is blamed for everything, like more pimples and more prostitution. That is why the AGW is a cult and not real and actual science.

 

[SSDD]

To a photon, that object a light year away is the same as direct contact..

And, apparently, an object that isn't there now, but will be in a year. Or if the object is cooler now, but in 363 days suddenly becomes warmer..
It's almost as if the photon can predict the future movement of every object in the universe, no matter how far away, as well as the temperature today and far into the future, before it decides whether and which direction it will travel.

Again...I don't make the rules for how a photon experiences the universe....according to physics...they exist at all points between their origin and their destination at the same time....If you are going to believe in photons, then you must accept the rules made up by the people who invented them. I didn't....I am just reporting what physicists claim. Again..sorry you can't wrap your head around it. It must suck....but such is life.

Actually, it is. Use the formula to calculate energy loss for a 100K object with 0K surroundings. Do the same for a 50K object with 0K surroundings.

Actually, it isn't....your surroundings in both instances are 0 degrees K. Are you really this dense?

This

is the formula for a radiator....any radiator in a vacuum at 0 degrees K.

This, on the other hand,

is the formula for a radiator not in a vacuum radiating to surroundings that are above 0 degrees K. Now again, set T and Tc to the same temperature and tell me what P equals.

As soon as you show me proof that an object above 0K stops radiating when a warmer object is near, or even light years away.
Or even if an object of the same temperature is near.

If the second law isn't enough for you...again, look at the equation above...set T and Tc to the same temperature and tell me what P equals...in case you can't manage it, P - zero. Do you know what zero means?

Now we are back to you providing a statement of the second law of thermodynamics which mentions net energy transfer and you know as well as I do that you can't provide one. Like it or not, the laws of physics, and the equations that describe them are on my side.

 

[SSDD]

I don't blame your parents. I blame you for being a squealing coward. That's entirely on you. You deliberately chose to guzzle cult piss by the gallon and self-lobotomize yourself.

I do blame your parents......look how you turned out. Look at your mode of conversation...look how vulgar you are...does that make you proud?...think it would make your parents proud?

Now, what do you plan to do about me calling you out on your pathetic behavior? Maybe cry at me even harder? Because that's worked so well for you in the past.

My behavior is fine....yours, on the other hand is deplorable...butting in to a discussion.... vulgar language...etc. You are pitiable......what else is there to say about you? You are the sort to be held up as an example of bad behavior....go about the threads and look at the content of your posts... Your parents failed and raised a miserable human being.[/QUOTE]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To a photon, that object a light year away is the same as direct contact..

And, apparently, an object that isn't there now, but will be in a year. Or if the object is cooler now, but in 363 days suddenly becomes warmer..
It's almost as if the photon can predict the future movement of every object in the universe, no matter how far away, as well as the temperature today and far into the future, before it decides whether and which direction it will travel.

Again...I don't make the rules for how a photon experiences the universe....according to physics...they exist at all points between their origin and their destination at the same time....If you are going to believe in photons, then you must accept the rules made up by the people who invented them. I didn't....I am just reporting what physicists claim. Again..sorry you can't wrap your head around it. It must suck....but such is life.

Actually, it is. Use the formula to calculate energy loss for a 100K object with 0K surroundings. Do the same for a 50K object with 0K surroundings.

Actually, it isn't....your surroundings in both instances are 0 degrees K. Are you really this dense?

This

is the formula for a radiator....any radiator in a vacuum at 0 degrees K.

This, on the other hand,

is the formula for a radiator not in a vacuum radiating to surroundings that are above 0 degrees K. Now again, set T and Tc to the same temperature and tell me what P equals.

As soon as you show me proof that an object above 0K stops radiating when a warmer object is near, or even light years away.
Or even if an object of the same temperature is near.

If the second law isn't enough for you...again, look at the equation above...set T and Tc to the same temperature and tell me what P equals...in case you can't manage it, P - zero. Do you know what zero means?

Now we are back to you providing a statement of the second law of thermodynamics which mentions net energy transfer and you know as well as I do that you can't provide one. Like it or not, the laws of physics, and the equations that describe them are on my side.

according to physics...they exist at all points between their origin and their destination at the same time.

So they can predict what will be in their path, 1 million light years away, in 1 million years, and depending on the temperature of that object, decide today if they will travel that way.
I'm not sure if that makes them smart or magic.

I am just reporting what physicists claim.

I've never seen a physicist make your photon (or wave) claims before.

 

[SSDD]

according to physics...they exist at all points between their origin and their destination at the same time.

So they can predict what will be in their path, 1 million light years away, in 1 million years, and depending on the temperature of that object, decide today if they will travel that way.
I'm not sure if that makes them smart or magic.

If you were already at your destination you wouldn't need to "predict" anything. Again...sorry you can't wrap your head around this but like it or not, that is how photons experience the universe if they actually exist as physics claims.

I've never seen a physicist make your photon (or wave) claims before.

Guess you never looked. There are plenty who postulate what it would be like to travel at the speed of light. According to physics, two observers anywhere along a photon's path could see the photon simultaneously if it were possible to see a photon. Again...sorry this is to big an idea to wrap your mind around...I don't believe in photons personally, but if they exist as science claims and you believe in them, then you are stuck believing in them as science claims. I am just pointing out what the universe is like for a photon according to science..

Your buddy Ian already commented on this and agreed that photons exist at every point along their path...that would mean that they are at their destination before they ever leave.

 

[HenryBHough]

A true believer would have not the slightest hesitation in licking a lamp post in winter to prove it isn't cold. Regardless of the alleged temperature - 'cause ever'body knows it's too damn hot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

according to physics...they exist at all points between their origin and their destination at the same time.

So they can predict what will be in their path, 1 million light years away, in 1 million years, and depending on the temperature of that object, decide today if they will travel that way.
I'm not sure if that makes them smart or magic.

If you were already at your destination you wouldn't need to "predict" anything. Again...sorry you can't wrap your head around this but like it or not, that is how photons experience the universe if they actually exist as physics claims.

I've never seen a physicist make your photon (or wave) claims before.

Guess you never looked. There are plenty who postulate what it would be like to travel at the speed of light. According to physics, two observers anywhere along a photon's path could see the photon simultaneously if it were possible to see a photon. Again...sorry this is to big an idea to wrap your mind around...I don't believe in photons personally, but if they exist as science claims and you believe in them, then you are stuck believing in them as science claims. I am just pointing out what the universe is like for a photon according to science..

Your buddy Ian already commented on this and agreed that photons exist at every point along their path...that would mean that they are at their destination before they ever leave.

If you were already at your destination you wouldn't need to "predict" anything.

But we're not talking about being at your destination, immediately, we're talking about knowing what will be at your destination, millions, hell billions, of years from now.

that is how photons experience the universe

Right, photons can experience not only the universe, but the future, as if they know every movement of every atom, as well as its temperature, now and at every moment in the future. LOL!

Guess you never looked.

I have looked. I've never seen a physicist claim a photon will not travel from a cooler object to a warmer one.

Let's try another experiment. I travel into Earth orbit with a laser. I calculate where the Sun will be in the time it takes the light from my laser to travel 1 AU. I fire my laser in that direction. Will the laser's photons (or waves, I don't care) leave the laser, or will they simply refuse to be emitted?

photons exist at every point along their path...that would mean that they are at their destination before they ever leave.

That is awesome! So how do they know if an alien, 1 million years from now, will move a hotter object into their path?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To a photon, that object a light year away is the same as direct contact..

And, apparently, an object that isn't there now, but will be in a year. Or if the object is cooler now, but in 363 days suddenly becomes warmer..
It's almost as if the photon can predict the future movement of every object in the universe, no matter how far away, as well as the temperature today and far into the future, before it decides whether and which direction it will travel.

Again...I don't make the rules for how a photon experiences the universe....according to physics...they exist at all points between their origin and their destination at the same time....If you are going to believe in photons, then you must accept the rules made up by the people who invented them. I didn't....I am just reporting what physicists claim. Again..sorry you can't wrap your head around it. It must suck....but such is life.

Actually, it is. Use the formula to calculate energy loss for a 100K object with 0K surroundings. Do the same for a 50K object with 0K surroundings.

Actually, it isn't....your surroundings in both instances are 0 degrees K. Are you really this dense?

This

is the formula for a radiator....any radiator in a vacuum at 0 degrees K.

This, on the other hand,

is the formula for a radiator not in a vacuum radiating to surroundings that are above 0 degrees K. Now again, set T and Tc to the same temperature and tell me what P equals.

As soon as you show me proof that an object above 0K stops radiating when a warmer object is near, or even light years away.
Or even if an object of the same temperature is near.

If the second law isn't enough for you...again, look at the equation above...set T and Tc to the same temperature and tell me what P equals...in case you can't manage it, P - zero. Do you know what zero means?

Now we are back to you providing a statement of the second law of thermodynamics which mentions net energy transfer and you know as well as I do that you can't provide one. Like it or not, the laws of physics, and the equations that describe them are on my side.

Actually, it isn't....your surroundings in both instances are 0 degrees K.

Actually, it is. Simply put 0 K into the second formula, what answer do you get?

Now again, set T and Tc to the same temperature and tell me what P equals.

P, net energy loss, equals zero. Even though both objects keep radiating.

If the second law isn't enough for you..

It is enough for me, because I understand it doesn't cause objects above 0K to stop radiating.

Do you know what zero means?

No net energy loss (or gain).

Now we are back to you providing a statement of the second law of thermodynamics which mentions net energy transfer

Wasn't the SB formula I provided enough for you? Are you really this dense?

 

[SSDD]

If you were already at your destination you wouldn't need to "predict" anything.

But we're not talking about being at your destination, immediately, we're talking about knowing what will be at your destination, millions, hell billions, of years from now.

No we aren't...we are talking about already being at your destination....Again, according to physics, a photon exists at EVERY point along its path at the same time...that includes the origin and the final destination. Again, sorry you are having so much trouble wrapping your head around this.

Right, photons can experience not only the universe, but the future, as if they know every movement of every atom, as well as its temperature, now and at every moment in the future. LOL!

Future is an irrelevant term to an entity that doesn't experience time. Truly sorry you can't comprehend this.

I have looked. I've never seen a physicist claim a photon will not travel from a cooler object to a warmer one.

No need....the second law does that.

That is awesome! So how do they know if an alien, 1 million years from now, will move a hotter object into their path?

No need to know...they are already there. They exist at every point along their path from origin to destination at the same time. Sorry this is so hard for you but you are really beginning to sound like a 5 year old asking why repeatedly...you are still trying to impose time on an entity that doesn't experience time...or distance....or space.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, it is. Simply put 0 K into the second formula, what answer do you get?

This is all to hard for you, isn't it....put 0 in place of T and Tc and P=0...like I said. Now, what do you think 0 means?

P, net energy loss, equals zero. Even though both objects keep radiating.

Nothing about net in either the SB equation or the Second Law of Thermodynamics....Making up stuff to insert into them doesn't make it true. Let me know when either is amended to say anything at all about net energy flow.

It is enough for me, because I understand it doesn't cause objects above 0K to stop radiating.

So you say, but that isn't what the equations say.

No net energy loss (or gain).

Again...nothing about net anything in either law. They are descriptions of gross energy flows.

Wasn't the SB formula I provided enough for you? Are you really this dense?

Sorry you don't understand that any more than the idea that photons don't experience time or distance or space...you see the equation and feel like you need to add something that isn't there...ie net. There is nothing about net in the SB law or the second law...they describe gross energy flows. Saying net when neither even mentions net is meaningless. If you can't work within what the laws actually say, then you are clearly wrong.[/QUOTE]