Yes, 97%

[Crick]

Close, but no photons are "overcoming" each other. When a piece of matter emits photons, it loses energy, when it absorbs photons it gains energy. The net effect is the algebraic sum of the energy gained and the energy lost.

 

[IanC]

.believing in the unseen, and unmeasurable, and untestable as you do...I guess you spend a lot of time talking around how so little of what you believe is proven in any real way....

Those "unseen", "unmeasurable" and "untestable" phenomena have allowed the science of physics to progress to things like the LHC's detection of the Higgs boson at CERN, high-temperature superconductors, molecular laser traps, Bose-Einstein condensates, controlled fusion reactions, quantum computing devices and thousands of other wonders of science. Not ONE single person involved in ANY of that work, for more than the last century, agrees with you on these points. Not one.

I think it's time you considered the possibility that you're wrong.

Actually, they haven't. What you have are stories about the unseen, untestable, and unmeasurable....none of it is proven because it remains unseen, untestable, and unmeasurable...some parts of the stories correlate with what can be tested, but as we all know correlation is not causation. QM is rife with contradictions because it is just a story about what can't bee seen, tested, or measured. It is like the three blind men examining an elephant...Where the microscopic is concerned...all of science is still blind...feeling around and making up stories about what they think they would be feeling if they actually could feel anything at that level.

Ian, for example, claiming that light waves can only cancel, interfere with, or amplify each other if someone is watching...How wacky is that. You people believing that statistics is an actual mechanism for anything...the fact is that large numbers of particles are modeled statistically under the ASSUMPTION that there is no interaction between the particles and that the system being modeled is at equilibrium. Ian takes that to mean that photons in reality do not interact rather than that his model assumes that they do not interact.

As to considering the possibility that I am wrong...sure, when you can present some actual evidence that I am wrong....as soon as you can present an actual measurement of a warm object radiating energy out and absorbing energy in from a cooler object at the same time. So far, all we have is measurements of cooler objects absorbing energy from warmer objects...every measurement ever taken tells the same story.

Perhaps it is time for you guys to put on your big girl panties and acknowledge that what you believe in is a mathematical model...what you believe to be happening has never been measured or observed....and it just pisses you off that I don't believe what you believe. I watch science discard long held beliefs every day...new knowledge comes along and we find that what we thought we knew....we didn't. As time moves on, post modern science will take more of those hits than classical science because so much of post modern science is, in fact, models....unobserved, untested, unmeasured...simply assumed...

Do YOU have any examples of photons interacting and transferring energy except in the presence of matter?

I am willing to explore other possibilities. Wirebender or gslack came up with high energy gamma photons that decompose into matter-antimatter pairs but that doesn't really have any relevance to terrestrial interactions.

 

[SSDD]

My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,....

That is awesome! So post a couple that mention one way flow. Be brave.

Why would anyone taking, and logging measurements feel the need to state what is self evident? What would be noteworthy would be an actual observation and measurement of energy flowing in two directions....Got any of those? Of course you don't because it doesn't happen.

SSDD, Answer me this. Do all molecules emit black body radiation?

So long as they are above 0 degrees K

 

[Billy_Bob]

So long as they are above 0 degrees K

So you admit that energy is flowing from every object above 0 K .

That is progress..

Will the protons from a cooler object be emitted towards a warmer object? Remember that all matter is emitting above 0 Kelvin.

 

[Crick]

Protons or photons?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Protons or photons?

Croutons?

 

[Crick]

Crotons.

 

[SSDD]

So long as they are above 0 degrees K

So you admit that energy is flowing from every object above 0 K .

That is progress..

Will the protons from a cooler object be emitted towards a warmer object? Remember that all matter is emitting above 0 Kelvin.

What's to admit? It can, to a certain extent be observed. I am guessing that you have taken these clowns parody of my position as if it were actually my position. The thing is, they can't argue against my actual position, so they have, among them, fabricated a story they can argue against.. I keep asking for observed, measured examples of warm objects absorbing energy from cool objects...every time I ask, they embellish their story of what my position is rather than simply admit that there are no observed, measured examples of warm objects absorbing energy from cool objects.

Take a warm object and a cool object and put them sufficiently far apart and you can measure radiation coming from each...radiating towards does not necessarily mean that there is an energy transfer between the objects happening...If you put a satellite between the earth and the sun, I am sure it could measure energy radiating out...that does not mean that the energy radiating out is actually being absorbed by the sun.

If you bring the objects closer together, you will reach a point where radiation can only be measured in one direction...and when the objects are in contact, I don't think there is any radiation happening at all in the direction of the contact...again, radiating towards an object does not mean that there is an energy transfer happening...energy does not move from cool objects to warm objects.

 

[Crick]

Asking us for measurements or examples is not a a statement of your position. If you think we're not correctly understanding your position, please explain it to us one more time.

You say "Take a warm object and a cool object and put them sufficiently far apart and you can measure radiation coming from each...radiating towards does not necessarily mean that there is an energy transfer between the objects happening...If you put a satellite between the earth and the sun, I am sure it could measure energy radiating out...that does not mean that the energy radiating out is actually being absorbed by the sun."

o How far is "sufficiently far?

o Why does that NOT mean there is energy transfer taking place between the two objects?

o Why would energy radiated in the direction of the sun by an orbiting satellite NOT be absorbed by the sun?

 

[2aguy]

I'm sure in 19 pages someone posted this already...
I know the man made global warming religionists will cling to their false temperature reports and their Green Goddess...but one day they may be deprogrammed from the cult...

Research Commentary The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus Heartland Institute

Anthropologist Benny Peiser attempted to replicate Oreskes’ findings and found only one-third of the papers endorsed the alarmist view and only 1 percent did so explicitly. In 2008, medical researcher Klaus-Martin Schulte used the same database and search terms as Oreskes to examine papers published from 2004 to February 2007 and found fewer than half endorsed the “consensus” and only 7 percent did so explicitly. Schulte counted 31 papers (6 percent of the sample) that explicitly or implicitly rejected the “consensus.” Finally, Oreskes’ methodology assumes the abstracts of papers accurately reflect their findings, an assumption proven false by In-Uck Park et al. in research published in Nature in 2014.

In 2009, a paper by Doran and Zimmerman published in EOS claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that mean global temperatures have risen since before the 1800s and that humans are a significant contributing factor. This study, too, has been debunked. The survey asked the wrong questions. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming also support those statements. The survey was silent on whether or not the human impact was large enough to constitute a problem or would cause a problem in the future. Moreover, the “97 percent” figure represents the views of only 79 of the 3,146 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. This is not evidence of consensus.

 

[SSDD]

Asking us for measurements or examples is not a a statement of your position. If you think we're not correctly understanding your position, please explain it to us one more time.

You say "Take a warm object and a cool object and put them sufficiently far apart and you can measure radiation coming from each...radiating towards does not necessarily mean that there is an energy transfer between the objects happening...If you put a satellite between the earth and the sun, I am sure it could measure energy radiating out...that does not mean that the energy radiating out is actually being absorbed by the sun."

o How far is "sufficiently far?

Guess that would depend on the temperature differential between the two objects

Why does that NOT mean there is energy transfer taking place between the two objects?

Radiating out towards an object does not automatically mean that the object is absorbing energy....take two microwave dishes...one sending a signal out that is of a greater magnitude than the other...you can certainly measure the outgoing signal from the weaker dish....keep moving further away from it towards the dish with the more powerful signal and the signal from the weaker dish keeps diminishing...at some point, depending on the difference between the magnitude of the two signals, the weaker signal will no longer be detectable...

Why would energy radiated in the direction of the sun by an orbiting satellite NOT be absorbed by the sun?

Energy does not move from cool objects to warm objects.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So long as they are above 0 degrees K

So you admit that energy is flowing from every object above 0 K .

That is progress..

Will the protons from a cooler object be emitted towards a warmer object? Remember that all matter is emitting above 0 Kelvin.

What's to admit? It can, to a certain extent be observed. I am guessing that you have taken these clowns parody of my position as if it were actually my position. The thing is, they can't argue against my actual position, so they have, among them, fabricated a story they can argue against.. I keep asking for observed, measured examples of warm objects absorbing energy from cool objects...every time I ask, they embellish their story of what my position is rather than simply admit that there are no observed, measured examples of warm objects absorbing energy from cool objects.

Take a warm object and a cool object and put them sufficiently far apart and you can measure radiation coming from each...radiating towards does not necessarily mean that there is an energy transfer between the objects happening...If you put a satellite between the earth and the sun, I am sure it could measure energy radiating out...that does not mean that the energy radiating out is actually being absorbed by the sun.

If you bring the objects closer together, you will reach a point where radiation can only be measured in one direction...and when the objects are in contact, I don't think there is any radiation happening at all in the direction of the contact...again, radiating towards an object does not mean that there is an energy transfer happening...energy does not move from cool objects to warm objects.

I keep asking for observed, measured examples of warm objects absorbing energy from cool objects.

You just admitted all objects above 0 K emit energy.
Do your smart photons refuse to be absorbed if the target is warmer than the emitter?

.. I keep asking for observed, measured examples of warm objects absorbing energy from cool objects...

I guess you could explain the Science magazine article I keep linking?

radiating towards an object does not mean that there is an energy transfer happening...

That is exactly what that means.

 

[SSDD]

You just admitted all objects above 0 K emit energy.

I never said otherwise...the suggestion that I said something else was you guys attempt to make up a position for me that you could argue against...There is no doubt that everything above 0K radiates.

your smart photons refuse to be absorbed if the target is warmer than the emitter?

Again, trying to anthromorpize....very weak. Refer to the microwave dish example....does the weaker signal from one dish know that it can't make it to the dish transmitting the stronger signal or is a simple subtraction of EM fields happening?

I guess you could explain the Science magazine article I keep linking?

There was no measurement there and they never claimed to have made a measurement...they were describing assumptions based on a mathematical model...just like you.

is exactly what that means.

Sorry, but it doesn't...again, two microwave dishes pointed at each other transmitting signals at different magnitudes...The dish transmitting the stronger signal does not receive the weaker signal...do you think the EM field was somehow aware that it could't make it to the dish and just gave up? Or perhaps simple subtraction of EM fields was responsible?

 

[jc456]

Fuck you you idiot

such class in a debate.

 

[IanC]

Ian's version of radiative transfer of energy-

All objects fully radiate according to their temperature.
The net transfer of energy is simply the sum of photons between each object and the momentum produced by both the emission and absorption of photons.
The momentum of radiative photons will always act as a repulsive force between the objects, and therefore increases entropy.

SSDD's version-

Objects radiate according to their temperature
Except if there is a warmer object in the direction of the radiation, (insert miracle here), and only a lesser amount of radiation is produced by the warmer object equal to the net flow.
Because radiation has decreased in both the warmer and cooler objects the momentum is now imbalanced and the objects are in effect attracted to each other. This decreases entropy.
Besides the necessity of having an intelligence that keeps track of the temperature of every particle in the universe and makes decisions on which radiation is allowed, SSDD's version also violates conservation of momentum, and entropy rules.

For those who don't understand the idea of light having momentum, simply check out the tail of a comet as it approaches the Sun.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You just admitted all objects above 0 K emit energy.

I never said otherwise...the suggestion that I said something else was you guys attempt to make up a position for me that you could argue against...There is no doubt that everything above 0K radiates.

your smart photons refuse to be absorbed if the target is warmer than the emitter?

Again, trying to anthromorpize....very weak. Refer to the microwave dish example....does the weaker signal from one dish know that it can't make it to the dish transmitting the stronger signal or is a simple subtraction of EM fields happening?

I guess you could explain the Science magazine article I keep linking?

There was no measurement there and they never claimed to have made a measurement...they were describing assumptions based on a mathematical model...just like you.

is exactly what that means.

Sorry, but it doesn't...again, two microwave dishes pointed at each other transmitting signals at different magnitudes...The dish transmitting the stronger signal does not receive the weaker signal...do you think the EM field was somehow aware that it could't make it to the dish and just gave up? Or perhaps simple subtraction of EM fields was responsible?

I never said otherwise..

Baloney. You said an object ceases radiating if a warmer object is nearby.
You further said that if both objects achieve an identical temperature, they both stop all radiating.

Refer to the microwave dish example

Why? We're talking about your confusion about the 2nd Law and the SB Law.

There was no measurement there and they never claimed to have made a measurement...they were describing assumptions based on a mathematical model...

So you're saying that all matter above 0K emits energy, the SB Law is correct but the Science magazine use of the SB formula to measure emitted energy was wrong.
Your logic is weak.

Or perhaps simple subtraction of EM fields was responsible?

Please explain how photons subtract from each other.

 

[IanC]

Yes, I would like to hear more about SSDD's understanding about EM fields etc.

I think he may be confusing the properties of photons that transfer electro/magnetic force with the simpler case of radiative photons that only carry away unwanted energy.

 

[Crick]

Fuck you you idiot

such class in a debate.

It was in response to this classy comment:

Perhaps it is time for you guys to put on your big girl panties and acknowledge that what you believe in is a mathematical model...what you believe to be happening has never been measured or observed....and it just pisses you off that I don't believe what you believe. I watch science discard long held beliefs every day...new knowledge comes along and we find that what we thought we knew....we didn't. As time moves on, post modern science will take more of those hits than classical science because so much of post modern science is, in fact, models....unobserved, untested, unmeasured...simply assumed...

 

[SSDD]

Ian's version of radiative transfer of energy-

All objects fully radiate according to their temperature.
The net transfer of energy is simply the sum of photons between each object and the momentum produced by both the emission and absorption of photons.
The momentum of radiative photons will always act as a repulsive force between the objects, and therefore increases entropy.

SSDD's version-

Objects radiate according to their temperature
Except if there is a warmer object in the direction of the radiation, (insert miracle here), and only a lesser amount of radiation is produced by the warmer object equal to the net flow.
Because radiation has decreased in both the warmer and cooler objects the momentum is now imbalanced and the objects are in effect attracted to each other. This decreases entropy.
Besides the necessity of having an intelligence that keeps track of the temperature of every particle in the universe and makes decisions on which radiation is allowed, SSDD's version also violates conservation of momentum, and entropy rules.

For those who don't understand the idea of light having momentum, simply check out the tail of a comet as it approaches the Sun.

And oddly enough, it is the version that I subscribe to that is supported by every observation ever made and yours which can not be observed, measured, or tested.

And again, you make up a position for me to argue against...it is somewhat amazing that for all your supposed intelligence, you are unable to read what I write and simply respond to that rather than make up your own version to argue against.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, I would like to hear more about SSDD's understanding about EM fields etc.

I think he may be confusing the properties of photons that transfer electro/magnetic force with the simpler case of radiative photons that only carry away unwanted energy.

I think perhaps you are confused regarding the properties of photons...the primary property of photons is that we don't even know whether or not they exist... again Ian, is LW radiation a wave or a shower of photons...prove your answer.