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.
Prove it. Prove that the scientists and manufacturers of scientific instruments have fooled themselves. What are they measuring instead of radiation?
Dang ian...you sure turn into a pissy little bitch when you are proven wrong...don't you. I never said that the manufacturers have fooled themselves...I said that the users have fooled themselves...and it is evident by the claims being made of measurements being made with the instruments...which clearly are not capable of measuring what they are claimed to be measuring.
So you seemingly agree that the instruments are measuring something in a reproducible fashion. If it is not radiation from the atmosphere then what is it? Explain yourself and provide some sort of evidence other than the misfiring neurons in your brain.
Temperature changes in an internal thermopile result in an electrical charge which is then "interpreted" via a contrived mathematical formula. The something that is being measured is the temperature change of the internal thermopile...any number of things might cause the thermopile to change temperature. The resulting electrical current is then interpreted every time by the same contrived mathematical formula... What they are measuring is based on the assumption that only one thing can cause the temperature change within the thermopile....if you are a hammer....everything looks like a nail.
The only instruments that actually measure radiation directly must be cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere in order to measure any radiation coming from the atmosphere...let the instrument warm and they will record nothing....but have no problem recording incoming radiation from the sun at ambient temperature which, according to believers is only half as much radiation as is coming back from the atmosphere.
Clearly it is your own brain that is misfiring...tragic lack of critical thinking skills....the opposite of skeptical is gullible.
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.
"Any number of things" when the instrument is designed specifically to ensure that nothing but incoming radiation affects the thermopile's temperature?
Stop just talking about it, and start putting up evidence that supports your opinion.
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.
.
Stop just talking about it, and start putting up evidence that supports your opinion.
So you are acknowledging that you have no idea how a thermopile works? interesting.
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.
.
Show me "net" in S=B's writings.
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.
.
Show me "net" in S=B's writings.
If you need an explanation as to what a thermopile does, then clearly you don't know.I acknowledge nothing of the sort.
I have, many times. You just call the Distributive Law of mathematics corrupt.
Show me "net" in S=B's writings.
You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.
Show me "net" in S=B's writings.
You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.
Set T and Tc to the same number...what does P equal...and since you can't show me the use of "net" in the writings of S-B, I am afraid that you just can't win...your claim that you could is simply a lie....the fact that P =0 when T and Tc are set to the same number is demonstrable fact. Sorry guy...
[/QUOTE]If you need an explanation as to what a thermopile does, then clearly you don't know.I acknowledge nothing of the sort.
Show me "net" in S=B's writings.
You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.
Set T and Tc to the same number...what does P equal...and since you can't show me the use of "net" in the writings of S-B, I am afraid that you just can't win...your claim that you could is simply a lie....the fact that P =0 when T and Tc are set to the same number is demonstrable fact. Sorry guy...
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.
Show me "net" in S=B's writings.
You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.
Set T and Tc to the same number...what does P equal...and since you can't show me the use of "net" in the writings of S-B, I am afraid that you just can't win...your claim that you could is simply a lie....the fact that P =0 when T and Tc are set to the same number is demonstrable fact. Sorry guy...
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.
Hahahahahaha. I guess he is saying both objects stop radiating if their temperature is the same?? What an idiot.
You know, I think he really believes his bullshit. I used to think he just painted himself into a corner and was just refusing to admit to an error but now I'm not so sure.
Show me "net" in S=B's writings.
You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.
Set T and Tc to the same number...what does P equal...and since you can't show me the use of "net" in the writings of S-B, I am afraid that you just can't win...your claim that you could is simply a lie....the fact that P =0 when T and Tc are set to the same number is demonstrable fact. Sorry guy...
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.
Hahahahahaha. I guess he is saying both objects stop radiating if their temperature is the same?? What an idiot.
You know, I think he really believes his bullshit. I used to think he just painted himself into a corner and was just refusing to admit to an error but now I'm not so sure.
Show me "net" in S=B's writings.
You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.
Set T and Tc to the same number...what does P equal...and since you can't show me the use of "net" in the writings of S-B, I am afraid that you just can't win...your claim that you could is simply a lie....the fact that P =0 when T and Tc are set to the same number is demonstrable fact. Sorry guy...
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.
Hahahahahaha. I guess he is saying both objects stop radiating if their temperature is the same?? What an idiot.
You know, I think he really believes his bullshit. I used to think he just painted himself into a corner and was just refusing to admit to an error but now I'm not so sure.
Found it!
Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."
Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”
http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”
https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux
Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.
What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.
http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.
Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "
This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.
Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."
In Support of the A in AGW
Show me "net" in S=B's writings.
You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.
Set T and Tc to the same number...what does P equal...and since you can't show me the use of "net" in the writings of S-B, I am afraid that you just can't win...your claim that you could is simply a lie....the fact that P =0 when T and Tc are set to the same number is demonstrable fact. Sorry guy...
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.
Show me "net" in S=B's writings.
You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.
Set T and Tc to the same number...what does P equal...and since you can't show me the use of "net" in the writings of S-B, I am afraid that you just can't win...your claim that you could is simply a lie....the fact that P =0 when T and Tc are set to the same number is demonstrable fact. Sorry guy...
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.
Hahahahahaha. I guess he is saying both objects stop radiating if their temperature is the same?? What an idiot.
You know, I think he really believes his bullshit. I used to think he just painted himself into a corner and was just refusing to admit to an error but now I'm not so sure.
Show me "net" in S=B's writings.
You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.
Set T and Tc to the same number...what does P equal...and since you can't show me the use of "net" in the writings of S-B, I am afraid that you just can't win...your claim that you could is simply a lie....the fact that P =0 when T and Tc are set to the same number is demonstrable fact. Sorry guy...
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.
Don't forget the timing issue. If a star a million light years were to wink out, all the Earth's warmer matter would have had to start radiating towards it a million years ago.
