What the science says

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again....

Temperature is a characteristic of a group of particles, not individual particles.

Radiation is created by individual particles depending on the internal conditions within that particle.

There is no tag that can be read that defines a particle's temperature because an individual particle has no temperature, only groups do and they are made up of variable speeds, of which the average is considered the temperature.

SSDD'S theory has no mechanisms to explain it. He conflates the rules for groups as prohibition for individual interactions. He confuses the properties of matter with the properties of light. He is wrong on multiple issues and refuses to defend or even acknowledge the inconsistencies that are pointed out to him.

Energy only moves from warm to cool...this is born out by every observation and measurement ever made....and the fact thatI can't describe or name a mechanism means nothing...you can't describe or name the mechanism that causes gravity...but it exists none the less and everything in the universe is effected by it.

Energy in the form of radiation is moving in all directions, all the time. Heat, a net exchange of energy only moves from warm to cool. Two objects at the same temperature are still radiating at each other but there is no net change, no movement of heat.

Ler me know when they alter the wording of the law to reflect what you believe as well...I have looked all over and in none of the actual statements of the law do they mention net anything...that would probably be because net energy exchange between to objects of different temperatures has never been observed...just doesn't happen...but yes...I know that you believe it does...based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...got it. When they change the 2nd law of thermodynamics to reflect what you believe...let me know.

The heat emitted by a blackbody (per unit time) at an absolute temperature of T is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law of thermal radiation,

where

has units of Watts, A is the total radiating area of the blackbody, and s is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
A small blackbody at absolute temperature T enclosed by a much larger blackbody at absolute temperature Te will transfer a net heat flow of,

Why is this a "net" heat flow? The small blackbody still emits a total heat flow given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. However, the small blackbody also receives and absorbs all the thermal energy emitted by the large enclosing blackbody, which is a function of its temperature Te. The difference in these two heat flows is the net heat flow lost by the small blackbody.

Blackbody Radiation Theory in Heat Transfer

 

[SSDD]

Again....

Temperature is a characteristic of a group of particles, not individual particles.

Radiation is created by individual particles depending on the internal conditions within that particle.

There is no tag that can be read that defines a particle's temperature because an individual particle has no temperature, only groups do and they are made up of variable speeds, of which the average is considered the temperature.

SSDD'S theory has no mechanisms to explain it. He conflates the rules for groups as prohibition for individual interactions. He confuses the properties of matter with the properties of light. He is wrong on multiple issues and refuses to defend or even acknowledge the inconsistencies that are pointed out to him.

Energy only moves from warm to cool...this is born out by every observation and measurement ever made....and the fact thatI can't describe or name a mechanism means nothing...you can't describe or name the mechanism that causes gravity...but it exists none the less and everything in the universe is effected by it.

Energy only moves from warm to cool

Repeating your confusion doesn't make it true.

Let me know when they change the wording of the second law of thermodynamics to reflect your beliefs....

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

Let me know when they change the wording of the second law of thermodynamics to reflect your beliefs....

Let me know when they change the wording of the second law of thermodynamics to say photons won't move from a colder body to a warmer body.

It already does...to bad you can't read for comprehension...if you believe photons carry energy then the statement clearly states that energy won't move from cool to warm...do you think it has some other way to move than via photon?....this is why I rarely talk to you...it is like talking to a child and if I want to talk to children I have grandkids to talk to that are much more interesting than you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again....

Temperature is a characteristic of a group of particles, not individual particles.

Radiation is created by individual particles depending on the internal conditions within that particle.

There is no tag that can be read that defines a particle's temperature because an individual particle has no temperature, only groups do and they are made up of variable speeds, of which the average is considered the temperature.

SSDD'S theory has no mechanisms to explain it. He conflates the rules for groups as prohibition for individual interactions. He confuses the properties of matter with the properties of light. He is wrong on multiple issues and refuses to defend or even acknowledge the inconsistencies that are pointed out to him.

Energy only moves from warm to cool...this is born out by every observation and measurement ever made....and the fact thatI can't describe or name a mechanism means nothing...you can't describe or name the mechanism that causes gravity...but it exists none the less and everything in the universe is effected by it.

Energy only moves from warm to cool

Repeating your confusion doesn't make it true.

Let me know when they change the wording of the second law of thermodynamics to reflect your beliefs....

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object

Let me know when they change the wording of the second law of thermodynamics to reflect your beliefs....

Let me know when they change the wording of the second law of thermodynamics to say photons won't move from a colder body to a warmer body.

It already does...to bad you can't read for comprehension...if you believe photons carry energy then the statement clearly states that energy won't move from cool to warm...do you think it has some other way to move than via photon?....this is why I rarely talk to you...it is like talking to a child and if I want to talk to children I have grandkids to talk to that are much more interesting than you.

It already does

Great, provide one from a decent source that says photons.

do you think it has some other way to move than via photon?..

Does energy inside solid matter move via photons? Does molecular movement play a part?

....this is why I rarely talk to you...it is like talking to a child

I agree, but as a parent, I'm used to speaking to children. Luckily mine are much smarter than you.

 

[skookerasbil]

Also what the science is saying..............

No increase in drought in over 100 years. No increase in flooding over the past 70+ years.

'Floods are not increasing': Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams 'global warming' link to floods & extreme weather - How does media 'get away with this?'



Not good news if you are an alarmist k00k.

 

[SSDD]

I agree, but as a parent, I'm used to speaking to children. Luckily mine are much smarter than you.

Not if they are getting their information from you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Man, glad you two at least got each other.

Combined, they still don't have 100 IQ points.

Think so? JC is probably on the wrong side of the curve but SSDD is just wrong.

Sop you say...but every observation ever made supports my argument while all you have is unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.

Tell us again how matter stops emitting if it's near matter of the same temperature.

No need...The SB equations speak for me.

Write out the equation....set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....(hint) zero...and it is supported by every observation ever made...whether you believe your eyes or not......Two way energy exchange has never been observed or measured...it only exists within mathematical models...not out here in the real world.

set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....

That would give the result of net power loss = zero.

and it is supported by every observation ever made

Really? Every observation ever made shows matter above 0K ceasing to emit when something the same temperature, or warmer, is nearby?

I'm curious about the mechanism that makes that "off switch" work.
Do both objects measure the temperature of the other? If so, how?

For 2 identical objects of slightly different temperatures,
it's understandable that the receiving object can "check the temperature" of the emitter,
based on the energy it receives, but how does the emitter know the temperature of the receiver?
You know, since the cooler receiver never emits.
And the warmer object would need to know the temperature of the cooler object, to know the precise moment
it needs to stop emitting, right?

How does it know? Spell it out.

You never answered. Why is that?

 

[Crick]

Excellent. Excellent. We await the explanation with bated breath SID.

 

[SSDD]

Excellent. Excellent. We await the explanation with bated breath SID.

You already got it idiot child...sorry it was over your head...alas, there is no crayon function here so it isn't possible to draw you a picture in bright primary colors.

 

[IanC]

SSDD continues to confuse the properties of photons with the properties of matter, etc.

there are two types of photons, real and virtual, radiative or reactive.

real photons are produced when particles shed energy from excited states to ground state. high school physics and electron orbitals. the energy is paid in full for the photon and there is no known need for a partner particle to absorb the photon. the direction of the emitted photon is random and only affected by the internal state of the emitting particle.

virtual photons are the force carriers in electromagnetic fields. they are constantly being emitted and reabsorbed unless they find a partner particle to swap the energy with, in a direction based on the properties of the two particles. the energy for these virtual photons is 'borrowed' via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal, and they exist for an incredibly short period of time but because in the photon's reference frame there is no time or distance they can 'see' if a partner is waiting. the direction of the photon, and whether it is attractive or repulsive is dependent on both the emitting particle and the receiving particle.


obviously this is an oversimplified description. but SSDD is confusing the need of one type of photon to have two partner particles, with the individual particle simply trying to shed energy. in the past he has also compared radiation to air coming out of a tire. this is wrong because air molecules cannot occupy the same spot at the same time whereas photons can. there is no prohibition for photons to go through the same spot at the same time going in different directions. he has also compared radiation to gravity, a simple concept but with no observed carrier, and always attractive. does he really believe that gravity of the smaller object 'stops' in the presents of a larger object? that the moon stops attracting the earth, and only the net force remains? tides would seem to disprove that.

SSDD cuts out bits of evidence, selects favourable definitions of words, to build his argument. and then ignores all the evidence against it, refusing to defend his idea except by endless repetition. I have shown that particles have no 'tag' that defines their temperature. I have used classical and quantum physics to show why heat only moves from warm to cool, but there is no prohibition against photons going in both directions, in fact there are strong reasons as to why they HAVE to move in both directions.

 

[SSDD]

there are two types of photons, real and virtual, radiative or reactive.

No ian...there is only one kind of photon...that kind is theoretical...and all properties ascribed to them is hypothetical...little more than a story to be told till such time as the mystery of the subatomic is unraveled....

 

[IanC]

there are two types of photons, real and virtual, radiative or reactive.

No ian...there is only one kind of photon...that kind is theoretical...and all properties ascribed to them is hypothetical...little more than a story to be told till such time as the mystery of the subatomic is unraveled....

hahahahahaha. that's why I always get my flashlight and my magnet mixed up!

 

[SSDD]

there are two types of photons, real and virtual, radiative or reactive.

No ian...there is only one kind of photon...that kind is theoretical...and all properties ascribed to them is hypothetical...little more than a story to be told till such time as the mystery of the subatomic is unraveled....

hahahahahaha. that's why I always get my flashlight and my magnet mixed up!

Not surprising for someone who is as easily fooled by instrumentation as you...and are you suggesting that because your flashlight emits light and your magnet doesn't that somehow that makes all your fantasies about photons real?...you really are easily duped...aren't you? You sound like crick showing his graph of so called greenhouse gas absorption and claiming that it supports the A in AGW... His belief that his graph supports the A in AGW and your belief in what photons are up to are all nothing more than assumption that you have mistaken for the truth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

there are two types of photons, real and virtual, radiative or reactive.

No ian...there is only one kind of photon...that kind is theoretical...and all properties ascribed to them is hypothetical...little more than a story to be told till such time as the mystery of the subatomic is unraveled....

hahahahahaha. that's why I always get my flashlight and my magnet mixed up!

SameStupidityDifferentDerp is so stupid, it's actual painful.

 

[IanC]

Poor SSDD. There is so much science information that he has to wall off from his worldview. He even has to deny basic mathematics.

I still think he would go get an MRI if he tweeted his knee though. Even if QM is just a hoax. Hahahaha

 

[jc456]

Poor SSDD. There is so much science information that he has to wall off from his worldview. He even has to deny basic mathematics.

I still think he would go get an MRI if he tweeted his knee though. Even if QM is just a hoax. Hahahaha

Wow, an MRI? How does an MRI get done? Under force? Machine right, electrical energy? Why do you go there with Todd?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Poor SSDD. There is so much science information that he has to wall off from his worldview. He even has to deny basic mathematics.

I still think he would go get an MRI if he tweeted his knee though. Even if QM is just a hoax. Hahahaha

Wow, an MRI? How does an MRI get done? Under force? Machine right, electrical energy? Why do you go there with Todd?

Wait a second, you can trick a photon to move to a warmer target, just by using electricity?

 

[IanC]

Poor SSDD. There is so much science information that he has to wall off from his worldview. He even has to deny basic mathematics.

I still think he would go get an MRI if he tweeted his knee though. Even if QM is just a hoax. Hahahaha

Wow, an MRI? How does an MRI get done? Under force? Machine right, electrical energy? Why do you go there with Todd?

Do you have even the foggiest notion of how an MRI machine works?

I can assure you that the technology wasn't invented using classical Newtonian physics.

Perhaps after discussing MRIs we could move onto tunnelling electron microscope. QM tunnelling must make SSDD'S head explode. But,but..... it's impossible, it must be a hoax!!!!! Hahahaha

 

[jc456]

Poor SSDD. There is so much science information that he has to wall off from his worldview. He even has to deny basic mathematics.

I still think he would go get an MRI if he tweeted his knee though. Even if QM is just a hoax. Hahahaha

Wow, an MRI? How does an MRI get done? Under force? Machine right, electrical energy? Why do you go there with Todd?

Do you have even the foggiest notion of how an MRI machine works?

I can assure you that the technology wasn't invented using classical Newtonian physics.

Perhaps after discussing MRIs we could move onto tunnelling electron microscope. QM tunnelling must make SSDD'S head explode. But,but..... it's impossible, it must be a hoax!!!!! Hahahaha

hmmmmm ever have an MRI? what's the loud clunk from the machine?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Poor SSDD. There is so much science information that he has to wall off from his worldview. He even has to deny basic mathematics.

I still think he would go get an MRI if he tweeted his knee though. Even if QM is just a hoax. Hahahaha

Wow, an MRI? How does an MRI get done? Under force? Machine right, electrical energy? Why do you go there with Todd?

Do you have even the foggiest notion of how an MRI machine works?

I can assure you that the technology wasn't invented using classical Newtonian physics.

Perhaps after discussing MRIs we could move onto tunnelling electron microscope. QM tunnelling must make SSDD'S head explode. But,but..... it's impossible, it must be a hoax!!!!! Hahahaha

hmmmmm ever have an MRI? what's the loud clunk from the machine?

The smart photons bumping into each other when they suddenly stop moving forward?

 

[jc456]

Poor SSDD. There is so much science information that he has to wall off from his worldview. He even has to deny basic mathematics.

I still think he would go get an MRI if he tweeted his knee though. Even if QM is just a hoax. Hahahaha

Wow, an MRI? How does an MRI get done? Under force? Machine right, electrical energy? Why do you go there with Todd?

Do you have even the foggiest notion of how an MRI machine works?

I can assure you that the technology wasn't invented using classical Newtonian physics.

Perhaps after discussing MRIs we could move onto tunnelling electron microscope. QM tunnelling must make SSDD'S head explode. But,but..... it's impossible, it must be a hoax!!!!! Hahahaha

hmmmmm ever have an MRI? what's the loud clunk from the machine?

The smart photons bumping into each other when they suddenly stop moving forward?

what happens when they bump each other? do they emit?