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.
if an object is cooler than another object, the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object, just has never been proven. evah!!!!!! BTW, when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object and it all goes upwards out of the atmosphere due to the lapse rate.And matter gives not a diddly fuck as to what you claim. All matter above 0 kelvin radiates. And the matter struck by the radiation either reflects it or absorbs it. Irregardless of its temperature in relationship to that of the matter that originally radiated the photon.I never said that objects don't radiate, I claim they don't radiate cold to hot.no loopholes, I just don't agree there is back radiation. You know this. I complimented you because you showed how the balance of your idea works. It is a very good analogy. but I don't believe the atmosphere actually gives back any money.Nice analogy. I don't completely agree but it was still a nice analogy
I think you should put more effort into understanding my comments rather than finding loopholes to get around them.
the inescapable conclusion from that statement is that you disagree with the fundemental physics principle that all objects warmer than zero degrees Kelvin radiate.
the atmosphere is warmer than 0K, it does radiate, some of that radiation is in the direction of the surface. QED
SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.
Funny you should object to a model that is only a postulate based on mathematics...since your belief in back radiation, anthropogenic global warming (even to a small degree) are exactly that, and you seem willing to defend them to the death.
Which rules do you think are up for debate? Most of them have been thoroughly investigated. Some are pretty strange but they have stood the test of repeated experiments by different investigators and methods.
SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.
I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light
Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.
No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.
It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.
That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.
So time does or does not stop at c?
It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.
From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth
Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin
The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
The full text and data available at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf
A direct measurement of backradiation showing the quantified contributions of the atmosphere's various GHGs. The contention that this is all an artifact of misused instrumentation is unsupportable bullshit.
Again.. measurements taken with an instrument cooled to -80F...such measurements could not be taken with an instrument at ambient temperature because the energy would not move to a warmer instrument according to the SLoT
if an object is cooler than another object, the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object, just has never been proven. evah!!!!!! BTW, when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object and it all goes upwards out of the atmosphere due to the lapse rate.And matter gives not a diddly fuck as to what you claim. All matter above 0 kelvin radiates. And the matter struck by the radiation either reflects it or absorbs it. Irregardless of its temperature in relationship to that of the matter that originally radiated the photon.I never said that objects don't radiate, I claim they don't radiate cold to hot.no loopholes, I just don't agree there is back radiation. You know this. I complimented you because you showed how the balance of your idea works. It is a very good analogy. but I don't believe the atmosphere actually gives back any money.I think you should put more effort into understanding my comments rather than finding loopholes to get around them.
the inescapable conclusion from that statement is that you disagree with the fundemental physics principle that all objects warmer than zero degrees Kelvin radiate.
the atmosphere is warmer than 0K, it does radiate, some of that radiation is in the direction of the surface. QED
Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.if an object is cooler than another object, the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object, just has never been proven. evah!!!!!! BTW, when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object and it all goes upwards out of the atmosphere due to the lapse rate.And matter gives not a diddly fuck as to what you claim. All matter above 0 kelvin radiates. And the matter struck by the radiation either reflects it or absorbs it. Irregardless of its temperature in relationship to that of the matter that originally radiated the photon.I never said that objects don't radiate, I claim they don't radiate cold to hot.no loopholes, I just don't agree there is back radiation. You know this. I complimented you because you showed how the balance of your idea works. It is a very good analogy. but I don't believe the atmosphere actually gives back any money.
the inescapable conclusion from that statement is that you disagree with the fundemental physics principle that all objects warmer than zero degrees Kelvin radiate.
the atmosphere is warmer than 0K, it does radiate, some of that radiation is in the direction of the surface. QED
the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object
View attachment 97446
Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.
What's your explanation?
when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object
Stop it, you almost sound like you understand the S-B Law.
and it all goes upwards
Why? Magic?
I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light
Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.
No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.
It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.
That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.
So time does or does not stop at c?
It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.
From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth
From your point of view light takes time.
Light doesn't take time? For instance, about 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth?
Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.if an object is cooler than another object, the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object, just has never been proven. evah!!!!!! BTW, when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object and it all goes upwards out of the atmosphere due to the lapse rate.And matter gives not a diddly fuck as to what you claim. All matter above 0 kelvin radiates. And the matter struck by the radiation either reflects it or absorbs it. Irregardless of its temperature in relationship to that of the matter that originally radiated the photon.I never said that objects don't radiate, I claim they don't radiate cold to hot.the inescapable conclusion from that statement is that you disagree with the fundemental physics principle that all objects warmer than zero degrees Kelvin radiate.
the atmosphere is warmer than 0K, it does radiate, some of that radiation is in the direction of the surface. QED
the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object
View attachment 97446
Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.
What's your explanation?
when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object
Stop it, you almost sound like you understand the S-B Law.
and it all goes upwards
Why? Magic?
What's your explanation?
Funny stuff right there, nice and made up.
Why? Magic?
Standing S-B Law warm moves to colder. That's up!!
Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.
No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.
It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.
That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.
So time does or does not stop at c?
It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.
From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth
From your point of view light takes time.
Light doesn't take time? For instance, about 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth?
From your POV, that's correct. Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
So time does or does not stop at c?
It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.
From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth
From your point of view light takes time.
Light doesn't take time? For instance, about 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth?
From your POV, that's correct. Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
From your POV, that's correct.
Yes, time exists from my POV. What about your POV?
Do you believe photons have tiny thermometers? Can they predict the future movements and temperatures of all matter across the Universe?
Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
Just because we understand the current human knowledge of physics? No.
It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.
From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth
From your point of view light takes time.
Light doesn't take time? For instance, about 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth?
From your POV, that's correct. Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
From your POV, that's correct.
Yes, time exists from my POV. What about your POV?
Do you believe photons have tiny thermometers? Can they predict the future movements and temperatures of all matter across the Universe?
Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
Just because we understand the current human knowledge of physics? No.
Are you playing the semantics game now Frank?
Point of view in this case means frame of reference. All six billion of us humans share the same reference frame when it come to the speed of light. Or do you disagree? If so, why do you disagree and explain your reasoning.
So time does or does not stop at c?
It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.
From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth
From your point of view light takes time.
Light doesn't take time? For instance, about 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth?
From your POV, that's correct. Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
From your POV, that's correct.
Yes, time exists from my POV. What about your POV?
Do you believe photons have tiny thermometers? Can they predict the future movements and temperatures of all matter across the Universe?
Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
Just because we understand the current human knowledge of physics? No.
Are all measures of downward IR made up?Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.if an object is cooler than another object, the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object, just has never been proven. evah!!!!!! BTW, when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object and it all goes upwards out of the atmosphere due to the lapse rate.And matter gives not a diddly fuck as to what you claim. All matter above 0 kelvin radiates. And the matter struck by the radiation either reflects it or absorbs it. Irregardless of its temperature in relationship to that of the matter that originally radiated the photon.I never said that objects don't radiate, I claim they don't radiate cold to hot.
the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object
View attachment 97446
Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.
What's your explanation?
when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object
Stop it, you almost sound like you understand the S-B Law.
and it all goes upwards
Why? Magic?
What's your explanation?
Funny stuff right there, nice and made up.
Why? Magic?
Standing S-B Law warm moves to colder. That's up!!
Funny stuff right there, nice and made up.
Those instrument readings are made up? Why do you feel that?
Are all measures of downward IR made up?
Standing S-B Law warm moves to colder.
SB doesn't say photons only more from warmer to colder.
If that were true, why does the cooler surface of the Sun radiate toward the hotter corona?
From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth
From your point of view light takes time.
Light doesn't take time? For instance, about 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth?
From your POV, that's correct. Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
From your POV, that's correct.
Yes, time exists from my POV. What about your POV?
Do you believe photons have tiny thermometers? Can they predict the future movements and temperatures of all matter across the Universe?
Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
Just because we understand the current human knowledge of physics? No.
Are you playing the semantics game now Frank?
Point of view in this case means frame of reference. All six billion of us humans share the same reference frame when it come to the speed of light. Or do you disagree? If so, why do you disagree and explain your reasoning.
So what if 6B share the same POV on c? Why is that relevant to a photon?
Again using the example of an ant at the Hudson Yards, it's all just dirt to the ant. He lacks the perceptional capacity to see it any other way
Are all measures of downward IR made up?Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.if an object is cooler than another object, the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object, just has never been proven. evah!!!!!! BTW, when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object and it all goes upwards out of the atmosphere due to the lapse rate.And matter gives not a diddly fuck as to what you claim. All matter above 0 kelvin radiates. And the matter struck by the radiation either reflects it or absorbs it. Irregardless of its temperature in relationship to that of the matter that originally radiated the photon.
the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object
View attachment 97446
Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.
What's your explanation?
when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object
Stop it, you almost sound like you understand the S-B Law.
and it all goes upwards
Why? Magic?
What's your explanation?
Funny stuff right there, nice and made up.
Why? Magic?
Standing S-B Law warm moves to colder. That's up!!
Funny stuff right there, nice and made up.
Those instrument readings are made up? Why do you feel that?
Are all measures of downward IR made up?
Standing S-B Law warm moves to colder.
SB doesn't say photons only more from warmer to colder.
If that were true, why does the cooler surface of the Sun radiate toward the hotter corona?
yes, did I stutter?
If that were true, why does the cooler surface of the Sun radiate toward the hotter corona?
I never said it did. The surface is the source, so all surface heat is from the engine internally forced.
Since the corona is hotter, why isn't the surface as hot as the corona if radiation will warm? Any guesses? I bet you have no idea.
It does not stop. Light travels at a finite speed and takes a finite amount of time to get to where it is going. What it 'feels like' to the photons is up for debate.
From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth
From your point of view light takes time.
Light doesn't take time? For instance, about 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth?
From your POV, that's correct. Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
From your POV, that's correct.
Yes, time exists from my POV. What about your POV?
Do you believe photons have tiny thermometers? Can they predict the future movements and temperatures of all matter across the Universe?
Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
Just because we understand the current human knowledge of physics? No.
Why should a photon share your notion of "future", that's a fiction of time
Are all measures of downward IR made up?Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.if an object is cooler than another object, the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object, just has never been proven. evah!!!!!! BTW, when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object and it all goes upwards out of the atmosphere due to the lapse rate.And matter gives not a diddly fuck as to what you claim. All matter above 0 kelvin radiates. And the matter struck by the radiation either reflects it or absorbs it. Irregardless of its temperature in relationship to that of the matter that originally radiated the photon.
the warm object radiates to the cooler object and not any IR is received by the warmer object
View attachment 97446
Here's measurement of IR moving downward from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.
What's your explanation?
when a cooler object does radiate, it is at a much less rate than a warmer object
Stop it, you almost sound like you understand the S-B Law.
and it all goes upwards
Why? Magic?
What's your explanation?
Funny stuff right there, nice and made up.
Why? Magic?
Standing S-B Law warm moves to colder. That's up!!
Funny stuff right there, nice and made up.
Those instrument readings are made up? Why do you feel that?
Are all measures of downward IR made up?
Standing S-B Law warm moves to colder.
SB doesn't say photons only more from warmer to colder.
If that were true, why does the cooler surface of the Sun radiate toward the hotter corona?
yes, did I stutter?
If that were true, why does the cooler surface of the Sun radiate toward the hotter corona?
I never said it did. The surface is the source, so all surface heat is from the engine internally forced.
Since the corona is hotter, why isn't the surface as hot as the corona if radiation will warm? Any guesses? I bet you have no idea.
From your point of view light takes time.
Light doesn't take time? For instance, about 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth?
From your POV, that's correct. Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
From your POV, that's correct.
Yes, time exists from my POV. What about your POV?
Do you believe photons have tiny thermometers? Can they predict the future movements and temperatures of all matter across the Universe?
Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
Just because we understand the current human knowledge of physics? No.
Are you playing the semantics game now Frank?
Point of view in this case means frame of reference. All six billion of us humans share the same reference frame when it come to the speed of light. Or do you disagree? If so, why do you disagree and explain your reasoning.
So what if 6B share the same POV on c? Why is that relevant to a photon?
Again using the example of an ant at the Hudson Yards, it's all just dirt to the ant. He lacks the perceptional capacity to see it any other way
Flip it the other way. We can't visit or even see into the world of the photons. Here in our universe it always travels at the speed of light. What it does in our world matters, the unknown and unknowable properties of what the universe looks like to a speed of light entity doesn't.
From your point of view light takes time. Stop mistaking your POV for the Truth
From your point of view light takes time.
Light doesn't take time? For instance, about 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth?
From your POV, that's correct. Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
From your POV, that's correct.
Yes, time exists from my POV. What about your POV?
Do you believe photons have tiny thermometers? Can they predict the future movements and temperatures of all matter across the Universe?
Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
Just because we understand the current human knowledge of physics? No.
Why should a photon share your notion of "future", that's a fiction of time
So a photon can tell, now, what the temperature of all matter, everywhere, will be at all points in the future?
That's some smart photon!
From your point of view light takes time.
Light doesn't take time? For instance, about 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth?
From your POV, that's correct. Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
From your POV, that's correct.
Yes, time exists from my POV. What about your POV?
Do you believe photons have tiny thermometers? Can they predict the future movements and temperatures of all matter across the Universe?
Are you like Ian and are God or the ultimate arbiter of the Universe?
Just because we understand the current human knowledge of physics? No.
Why should a photon share your notion of "future", that's a fiction of time
So a photon can tell, now, what the temperature of all matter, everywhere, will be at all points in the future?
That's some smart photon!
The future is your fiction, a photon has no time
