Yes, 97%

[SSDD]

no one is saying that Heat is flowing both ways. no one is saying that net energy is flowing from cool to warm. we are saying that everything radiates according to temperature, via photons. nothing can stop this basic function of matter, and once radiative photons are emitted they continue on their path until they interact with another bit of matter. got that? once created, a photon only interacts with matter. photons do not interact with other photons, there is no cancelling out of photons, there is no limit as to how many photons can exist in the same space. photons have different characteristics than matter, which is something that you dont seem to understand.

Is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another....energy moves in one direction...every observation ever made bears this out. You believe in a mathematical model more than you believe in every observation ever made.

you refuse to meaningfully discuss the relatively simple case of energy transfer by radiation. now you want to ramp up the complexity by several orders of magnitude by discussing ambiguously defined heat? not one in a hundred people can skillfully describe heat transfer and Im not one of them. if you refuse to believe in photons, which are observable, measurable and testable, then why are you bringing up fantastically complex world of quasiparticle heat movement?

Photons can not be observed....that is one of the reasons we really can't talk Ian, you don't have a grip on what is real and what is theorized....certain phenomena can be observed and photons are one of the guesses that science has proposed to explain the observed phenomena...you take that guess and speak of it as if it were stone cold reality...it isn't.

 

[SSDD]

Show me your definition of heat and I'll show you your error.

I don't have a definition of heat...and neither, apparently does science since science itself remains unsure as to what, exactly heat is....which gives rise to the absurdity of you believing in a mathematical model produced by science concerning a thing which can't, and probably never will be observed when they can't even state with any confidence what a thing we all observe every day is and isn't.

And isn't it interesting that you only choose one of the 4 that I provided to argue...and just part of that one...cherry pick?....

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I've shown you observations that prove your misunderstanding of the second law to be wrong.

No you haven't...not even close. Every one of your idiot observations has been patently flawed...but do feel free to bring any that you think have merit here to be shot down again.

waiting for your two examples that back up your claim of one way flow of energy.

I gave you 4...not my fault that you are either to obtuse, or stupid to acknowledge that you have lost this discussion.

 

[SSDD]

no one is saying that Heat is flowing both ways. no one is saying that net energy is flowing from cool to warm. we are saying that everything radiates according to temperature, via photons. nothing can stop this basic function of matter, and once radiative photons are emitted they continue on their path until they interact with another bit of matter. got that? once created, a photon only interacts with matter. photons do not interact with other photons, there is no cancelling out of photons, there is no limit as to how many photons can exist in the same space. photons have different characteristics than matter, which is something that you dont seem to understand.

Is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another....energy moves in one direction...every observation ever made bears this out. You believe in a mathematical model more than you believe in every observation ever made.

energy moves in one direction...every observation ever made bears this out.

However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Science Magazine awaits your explanation of their flawed math.

Refer to the SB law...the output of a radiator is determined by the temperature differential between the radiator and its surroundings.... and the energy is moving in one direction just as the second law states.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show me your definition of heat and I'll show you your error.

I don't have a definition of heat...and neither, apparently does science since science itself remains unsure as to what, exactly heat is....which gives rise to the absurdity of you believing in a mathematical model produced by science concerning a thing which can't, and probably never will be observed when they can't even state with any confidence what a thing we all observe every day is and isn't.

And isn't it interesting that you only choose one of the 4 that I provided to argue...and just part of that one...cherry pick?....

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I've shown you observations that prove your misunderstanding of the second law to be wrong.

No you haven't...not even close. Every one of your idiot observations has been patently flawed...but do feel free to bring any that you think have merit here to be shot down again.

waiting for your two examples that back up your claim of one way flow of energy.

I gave you 4...not my fault that you are either to obtuse, or stupid to acknowledge that you have lost this discussion.

You gave me no examples that say energy only flows one way.

 

[SSDD]

Show me your definition of heat and I'll show you your error.

I don't have a definition of heat...and neither, apparently does science since science itself remains unsure as to what, exactly heat is....which gives rise to the absurdity of you believing in a mathematical model produced by science concerning a thing which can't, and probably never will be observed when they can't even state with any confidence what a thing we all observe every day is and isn't.

And isn't it interesting that you only choose one of the 4 that I provided to argue...and just part of that one...cherry pick?....

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I've shown you observations that prove your misunderstanding of the second law to be wrong.

No you haven't...not even close. Every one of your idiot observations has been patently flawed...but do feel free to bring any that you think have merit here to be shot down again.

waiting for your two examples that back up your claim of one way flow of energy.

I gave you 4...not my fault that you are either to obtuse, or stupid to acknowledge that you have lost this discussion.

You gave me no examples that say energy only flows one way.

Sure I did...sorry that you are too fucking stupid to read and comprehend....You are becoming incredibly boring....much like a child who when shown clear proof of his error still persists in claiming he is right. The second law says nothing about net flows...it speaks of one way energy movement...from hot to cold...if you can't understand that then continued discussion is pointless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no one is saying that Heat is flowing both ways. no one is saying that net energy is flowing from cool to warm. we are saying that everything radiates according to temperature, via photons. nothing can stop this basic function of matter, and once radiative photons are emitted they continue on their path until they interact with another bit of matter. got that? once created, a photon only interacts with matter. photons do not interact with other photons, there is no cancelling out of photons, there is no limit as to how many photons can exist in the same space. photons have different characteristics than matter, which is something that you dont seem to understand.

Is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another....energy moves in one direction...every observation ever made bears this out. You believe in a mathematical model more than you believe in every observation ever made.

energy moves in one direction...every observation ever made bears this out.

However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Science Magazine awaits your explanation of their flawed math.

Refer to the SB law...the output of a radiator is determined by the temperature differential between the radiator and its surroundings.... and the energy is moving in one direction just as the second law states.

Refer to the SB law...

Refer to your admission that all energy above 0K emits energy.
And your failure to explain why a cooler object, which doesn't emit, can impact the rate at which a warmer object cools.
And your failure to show where the second law states that energy only flows one way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show me your definition of heat and I'll show you your error.

I don't have a definition of heat...and neither, apparently does science since science itself remains unsure as to what, exactly heat is....which gives rise to the absurdity of you believing in a mathematical model produced by science concerning a thing which can't, and probably never will be observed when they can't even state with any confidence what a thing we all observe every day is and isn't.

And isn't it interesting that you only choose one of the 4 that I provided to argue...and just part of that one...cherry pick?....

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I've shown you observations that prove your misunderstanding of the second law to be wrong.

No you haven't...not even close. Every one of your idiot observations has been patently flawed...but do feel free to bring any that you think have merit here to be shot down again.

waiting for your two examples that back up your claim of one way flow of energy.

I gave you 4...not my fault that you are either to obtuse, or stupid to acknowledge that you have lost this discussion.

You gave me no examples that say energy only flows one way.

Sure I did...sorry that you are too fucking stupid to read and comprehend....You are becoming incredibly boring....much like a child who when shown clear proof of his error still persists in claiming he is right. The second law says nothing about net flows...it speaks of one way energy movement...from hot to cold...if you can't understand that then continued discussion is pointless.

The second law says nothing about net flows...it speaks of one way energy movement...from hot to cold...

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.
The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics. In classical thermodynamics, the second law is a basic postulate defining the concept of thermodynamic entropy, applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer. In statistical thermodynamics, the second law is a consequence of unitarity in quantum mechanics. In statistical mechanics information entropy is defined from information theory, known as the Shannon entropy. In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of alternative microscopic configurations corresponding to a single macroscopic state.
The second law refers to increases in entropy that can be analyzed into two varieties, due to dissipation of energy and due to dispersion of matter. One may consider a compound thermodynamic system that initially has interior walls that restrict transfers within it. The second law refers to events over time after a thermodynamic operation on the system, that allows internal heat transfers, removes or weakens the constraints imposed by its interior walls, and isolates it from the surroundings. As for dissipation of energy, the temperature becomes spatially homogeneous, regardless of the presence or absence of an externally imposed unchanging external force field. As for dispersion of matter, in the absence of an externally imposed force field, the chemical concentrations also become as spatially homogeneous as is allowed by the permeabilities of the interior walls. Such homogeneity is one of the characteristics of the state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium of a thermodynamic system.

This definition doesn't back up your claim. Sorry.

 

[skookerasbil]

Havent checked in on this thread in a bit.......but w0w, SSDD sure as hell blew this whole thread to shit in just one post did he not?

 

[SSDD]

Show me your definition of heat and I'll show you your error.

I don't have a definition of heat...and neither, apparently does science since science itself remains unsure as to what, exactly heat is....which gives rise to the absurdity of you believing in a mathematical model produced by science concerning a thing which can't, and probably never will be observed when they can't even state with any confidence what a thing we all observe every day is and isn't.

And isn't it interesting that you only choose one of the 4 that I provided to argue...and just part of that one...cherry pick?....

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I've shown you observations that prove your misunderstanding of the second law to be wrong.

No you haven't...not even close. Every one of your idiot observations has been patently flawed...but do feel free to bring any that you think have merit here to be shot down again.

waiting for your two examples that back up your claim of one way flow of energy.

I gave you 4...not my fault that you are either to obtuse, or stupid to acknowledge that you have lost this discussion.

You gave me no examples that say energy only flows one way.

Sure I did...sorry that you are too fucking stupid to read and comprehend....You are becoming incredibly boring....much like a child who when shown clear proof of his error still persists in claiming he is right. The second law says nothing about net flows...it speaks of one way energy movement...from hot to cold...if you can't understand that then continued discussion is pointless.

The second law says nothing about net flows...it speaks of one way energy movement...from hot to cold...

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.
The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics. In classical thermodynamics, the second law is a basic postulate defining the concept of thermodynamic entropy, applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer. In statistical thermodynamics, the second law is a consequence of unitarity in quantum mechanics. In statistical mechanics information entropy is defined from information theory, known as the Shannon entropy. In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of alternative microscopic configurations corresponding to a single macroscopic state.
The second law refers to increases in entropy that can be analyzed into two varieties, due to dissipation of energy and due to dispersion of matter. One may consider a compound thermodynamic system that initially has interior walls that restrict transfers within it. The second law refers to events over time after a thermodynamic operation on the system, that allows internal heat transfers, removes or weakens the constraints imposed by its interior walls, and isolates it from the surroundings. As for dissipation of energy, the temperature becomes spatially homogeneous, regardless of the presence or absence of an externally imposed unchanging external force field. As for dispersion of matter, in the absence of an externally imposed force field, the chemical concentrations also become as spatially homogeneous as is allowed by the permeabilities of the interior walls. Such homogeneity is one of the characteristics of the state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium of a thermodynamic system.

This definition doesn't back up your claim. Sorry.

Actually, that definition is based in large part on mathematical models and doesn't much resemble the actual second law...the Clausius statement states “it is impossible for a self acting machine working in a cyclic process without any external force, to transfer heat from a body at a lower temperature to a body at a higher temperature.

A photon...a single photon, if they exist moving from a cool object, to a warm object would be moving from a place of higher entropy to a place of lower entropy....sorry but it just doesn't happen. You have lost this discussion as miserably as a person could lose...It was predictable because the fact is that no observation has ever been made of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...you predictably provides several examples which failed...My argument remains as it was in the beginning asking you to provide an observed, measured example of something that has never been either observed or measured and your argument has degenerated to that of a petulant child unwilling to admit that he has been bested asking why...why...why...why...why...why...why....why...why....why.

 

[skookerasbil]

Heres the thing with this whole 97% debate thing........

At the end of the day, its a moot point if one is a realist and I'm not even being flip here.

Lets say that many more people accept that AGW is a given. The next logical question is......

And?

According to a UN statement in 2012, it would cost the world 76 trillion dollars for the world to go green and get off fossil fuels. Forgetting about the stoopid amount of $$ that is ( bit a trite point to the AGW crowd ) we would necessarily be asking the entire worlds population to discard their way of life!! Now......connect the dots on the political possibilities of this happening!!! Imagine for a moment, a political leader having a press conference and stating, "The time has come people to ban fossil fuels for the future of out planet!! My plan will work. Of course, we will have to give up many of our common conveniences like air conditioning!! Power will necessarily need to be rationed in terms of heating, but we can adapt by wearing lots of sweaters indoors on cold days!! Cell phones will have to become a thing of the past but people in prior centuries made due without them. So can we!! Everyone will necessarily have to drive a motor vehicle much like the SMARTFORTWO but lets not forget there was a time where people traveled only by train or horse and buggy!! The candle industry will become enormous once again and bring lots of jobs to our economy........"




Need I continue???



Those in the AGW crowd.......their thinking is and will always be, "Anything is possible if we set our mind to it!!". But in the real world, that's not how it works. For Christsakes, our leaders cant even get up the balls to close our borders or make a decision on immigration for the last 40 years. Its a connect the dots thing people.......those that can see the folly in taking this 97% stuff past something resembling a game of trivia!!! The k00ks say, "What about the future of our grandchildren?"......as if people will EVER be OK with getting slammed with enormous levels of taxes and accepting a poverty level of living standards because "the models are predicting doom!!!"


The perfect analogy?

Bush and Obama spiking the football on the death of Islamic terrorism. Feel good moments are gay. What matters is the stark realities when you have to confront the inevitable.......only the suckers don't get it.



Now......you will notice that none of the AGW crowd will directly address my post. The response will be "You're a retard!!" or "You're a greedy, cold conservative" or "Going green will be an economic boom!!". Lets face it.......responding to the stark realities is 100% impossible.



Which is why, 97% or no, the AGW crowd is losing and will continue to lose.......and on that point, I spike the football every day in this forum!!!


Because I can!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show me your definition of heat and I'll show you your error.

I don't have a definition of heat...and neither, apparently does science since science itself remains unsure as to what, exactly heat is....which gives rise to the absurdity of you believing in a mathematical model produced by science concerning a thing which can't, and probably never will be observed when they can't even state with any confidence what a thing we all observe every day is and isn't.

And isn't it interesting that you only choose one of the 4 that I provided to argue...and just part of that one...cherry pick?....

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I've shown you observations that prove your misunderstanding of the second law to be wrong.

No you haven't...not even close. Every one of your idiot observations has been patently flawed...but do feel free to bring any that you think have merit here to be shot down again.

waiting for your two examples that back up your claim of one way flow of energy.

I gave you 4...not my fault that you are either to obtuse, or stupid to acknowledge that you have lost this discussion.

You gave me no examples that say energy only flows one way.

Sure I did...sorry that you are too fucking stupid to read and comprehend....You are becoming incredibly boring....much like a child who when shown clear proof of his error still persists in claiming he is right. The second law says nothing about net flows...it speaks of one way energy movement...from hot to cold...if you can't understand that then continued discussion is pointless.

The second law says nothing about net flows...it speaks of one way energy movement...from hot to cold...

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.
The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics. In classical thermodynamics, the second law is a basic postulate defining the concept of thermodynamic entropy, applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer. In statistical thermodynamics, the second law is a consequence of unitarity in quantum mechanics. In statistical mechanics information entropy is defined from information theory, known as the Shannon entropy. In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of alternative microscopic configurations corresponding to a single macroscopic state.
The second law refers to increases in entropy that can be analyzed into two varieties, due to dissipation of energy and due to dispersion of matter. One may consider a compound thermodynamic system that initially has interior walls that restrict transfers within it. The second law refers to events over time after a thermodynamic operation on the system, that allows internal heat transfers, removes or weakens the constraints imposed by its interior walls, and isolates it from the surroundings. As for dissipation of energy, the temperature becomes spatially homogeneous, regardless of the presence or absence of an externally imposed unchanging external force field. As for dispersion of matter, in the absence of an externally imposed force field, the chemical concentrations also become as spatially homogeneous as is allowed by the permeabilities of the interior walls. Such homogeneity is one of the characteristics of the state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium of a thermodynamic system.

This definition doesn't back up your claim. Sorry.

Actually, that definition is based in large part on mathematical models and doesn't much resemble the actual second law...the Clausius statement states “it is impossible for a self acting machine working in a cyclic process without any external force, to transfer heat from a body at a lower temperature to a body at a higher temperature.

A photon...a single photon, if they exist moving from a cool object, to a warm object would be moving from a place of higher entropy to a place of lower entropy....sorry but it just doesn't happen. You have lost this discussion as miserably as a person could lose...It was predictable because the fact is that no observation has ever been made of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...you predictably provides several examples which failed...My argument remains as it was in the beginning asking you to provide an observed, measured example of something that has never been either observed or measured and your argument has degenerated to that of a petulant child unwilling to admit that he has been bested asking why...why...why...why...why...why...why....why...why....why.

A photon...a single photon, if they exist moving from a cool object, to a warm object would be moving from a place of higher entropy to a place of lower entropy....sorry but it just doesn't happen.

Unless, at the same time, two photons were moving from the warmer object to the cooler object.

your argument has degenerated to that of a petulant child unwilling to admit that he has been bested asking why...why...why...why...why...why...why....why...why....why

But enough about you.

I found a source, simplistic enough for you to understand, which seems to have been written with you in mind.

Every object around you is continually radiating, unless its temperature is at absolute zero (which is a little unlikely because you can’t physically get to a temperature of absolute zero, with no molecular movement). A scoop of ice cream, for example, radiates. Even you radiate all the time, but that radiation isn’t visible as light because it’s in the infrared part of the spectrum. However, that light is visible to infrared scopes, as you’ve probably seen in the movies or on television.
You radiate heat in all directions all the time, and everything in your environment radiates heat back to you. When you have the same temperature as your surroundings, you radiate as fast and as much to your environment as it does to you. When two things are in thermal contact but no thermal energy is exchanged between them, they’re in thermal equilibrium. If two things are in thermal equilibrium, they have the same temperature.

Transferring Heat through Radiation - For Dummies

Keep looking for your two sources that talk about one way flow of energy.
Your failure is amusing.

 

[SSDD]

A photon...a single photon, if they exist moving from a cool object, to a warm object would be moving from a place of higher entropy to a place of lower entropy....sorry but it just doesn't happen.

Unless, at the same time, two photons were moving from the warmer object to the cooler object.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds...one object 50C one object 75C....and you claim that two photons from the 75C object would lower its energy level enough to allow the photon from the 50C object to be absorbed?

Keep looking for your two sources that talk about one way flow of energy.

Already did, but I will post the pertinent statements again.

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

Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy.

heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).

Now if you can't bring yourself to even admit that those are all explicit statements of one way energy movement, I see no hope for you. I could possibly understand you not recognizing an equation that describes one way energy flow...you would have to have some small grasp of math to see that, but those statements are plain english...heat flows from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY is about as explicit a description of one way energy movement as could be made....if you can't grasp that, then you are indeed even more stupid than crick...at least he got a clue and realized that he can never provide an actual observed, measured example of what he claims so rather than continue to suffer the embarrassment of losing forever, he simply left. Even when given exactly what you asked for, you claim that it doesn't say what it says....How much more stupid can you possibly get?

 

[skookerasbil]

Heres the thing with this whole 97% debate thing........

At the end of the day, its a moot point if one is a realist and I'm not even being flip here.

Lets say that many more people accept that AGW is a given. The next logical question is......

And?

According to a UN statement in 2012, it would cost the world 76 trillion dollars for the world to go green and get off fossil fuels. Forgetting about the stoopid amount of $$ that is ( bit a trite point to the AGW crowd ) we would necessarily be asking the entire worlds population to discard their way of life!! Now......connect the dots on the political possibilities of this happening!!! Imagine for a moment, a political leader having a press conference and stating, "The time has come people to ban fossil fuels for the future of out planet!! My plan will work. Of course, we will have to give up many of our common conveniences like air conditioning!! Power will necessarily need to be rationed in terms of heating, but we can adapt by wearing lots of sweaters indoors on cold days!! Cell phones will have to become a thing of the past but people in prior centuries made due without them. So can we!! Everyone will necessarily have to drive a motor vehicle much like the SMARTFORTWO but lets not forget there was a time where people traveled only by train or horse and buggy!! The candle industry will become enormous once again and bring lots of jobs to our economy........"




Need I continue???



Those in the AGW crowd.......their thinking is and will always be, "Anything is possible if we set our mind to it!!". But in the real world, that's not how it works. For Christsakes, our leaders cant even get up the balls to close our borders or make a decision on immigration for the last 40 years. Its a connect the dots thing people.......those that can see the folly in taking this 97% stuff past something resembling a game of trivia!!! The k00ks say, "What about the future of our grandchildren?"......as if people will EVER be OK with getting slammed with enormous levels of taxes and accepting a poverty level of living standards because "the models are predicting doom!!!"


The perfect analogy?

Bush and Obama spiking the football on the death of Islamic terrorism. Feel good moments are gay. What matters is the stark realities when you have to confront the inevitable.......only the suckers don't get it.



Now......you will notice that none of the AGW crowd will directly address my post. The response will be "You're a retard!!" or "You're a greedy, cold conservative" or "Going green will be an economic boom!!". Lets face it.......responding to the stark realities is 100% impossible.



Which is why, 97% or no, the AGW crowd is losing and will continue to lose.......and on that point, I spike the football every day in this forum!!!


Because I can!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

God....I really do love this forum!!!!!

 

[SSDD]

God....I really do love this forum!!!!!

How frustrating it must be for toddster....he believes so much that energy flow is a two way proposition....and all I want is just an observed, measured example or two of it happening.....and he can't find one but he still believes so hard. He is denying plain english now...he sees sentences that say energy goes from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY and claims that they don't mean one way flow. NOT THE OTHER WAY...what else could that possibly be construed to mean? How far out there do you have to be to look at that sentence and respond that it doesn't say one way energy flow?

I love this place to. If you want to see abnormal psychology at work...and I mean working hard...all you have to do is open the door, step inside, and look around.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A photon...a single photon, if they exist moving from a cool object, to a warm object would be moving from a place of higher entropy to a place of lower entropy....sorry but it just doesn't happen.

Unless, at the same time, two photons were moving from the warmer object to the cooler object.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds...one object 50C one object 75C....and you claim that two photons from the 75C object would lower its energy level enough to allow the photon from the 50C object to be absorbed?

Keep looking for your two sources that talk about one way flow of energy.

Already did, but I will post the pertinent statements again.

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

Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy.

heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).

Now if you can't bring yourself to even admit that those are all explicit statements of one way energy movement, I see no hope for you. I could possibly understand you not recognizing an equation that describes one way energy flow...you would have to have some small grasp of math to see that, but those statements are plain english...heat flows from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY is about as explicit a description of one way energy movement as could be made....if you can't grasp that, then you are indeed even more stupid than crick...at least he got a clue and realized that he can never provide an actual observed, measured example of what he claims so rather than continue to suffer the embarrassment of losing forever, he simply left. Even when given exactly what you asked for, you claim that it doesn't say what it says....How much more stupid can you possibly get?

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds...one object 50C one object 75C....and you claim that two photons from the 75C object would lower its energy level enough to allow the photon from the 50C object to be absorbed?

I agree, you have to be a low IQ cretin to think that photons magically bounce off the 75C object, because they came from a 50C object.

Keep looking for your two sources that talk about one way flow of energy

Already did, but I will post the pertinent statements again.

It's funny that none of them mention one way flow of energy.
Is English your second language?

Perhaps you can find a version of the Second Law that says something about a one way flow of ENERGY?
I'll continue to mock your failure to do so.

heat flows from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY

Absolutely. Now show me your definition of heat and I'll point out your error.
Here's a hint, that's still not helping your claim of one way flow of energy.

Do you think our satellites in space can measure the temperature of the Earth on the sun lit side?
Or does your magical theory only allow measurement of the dark side?

No comment on the source written just for you? LOL!

Every object around you is continually radiating, unless its temperature is at absolute zero (which is a little unlikely because you can’t physically get to a temperature of absolute zero, with no molecular movement). A scoop of ice cream, for example, radiates. Even you radiate all the time, but that radiation isn’t visible as light because it’s in the infrared part of the spectrum. However, that light is visible to infrared scopes, as you’ve probably seen in the movies or on television.
You radiate heat in all directions all the time, and everything in your environment radiates heat back to you. When you have the same temperature as your surroundings, you radiate as fast and as much to your environment as it does to you. When two things are in thermal contact but no thermal energy is exchanged between them, they’re in thermal equilibrium. If two things are in thermal equilibrium, they have the same temperature.

Transferring Heat through Radiation - For Dummies

You should contact the author and point out his error. I'm sure he'll correct it for the next printing.
Let us know his response.

 

[skookerasbil]

Watch this vid.......hysterical.......far left propaganda fraud >>>

Explainer What the U.N. Climate Summit Was Really About Discovery News

 

[SSDD]

heat flows from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY

Absolutely. Now show me your definition of heat and I'll point out your error.
Here's a hint, that's still not helping your claim of one way flow of energy.

We are finished...I declare absolute victory. Anyone who can say absolutely, heat flows from hot to cold but not the other way and still claim that it is a two way street is just too stupid to talk to. See you later toddster...it was a pleasure proving you wrong.

I asked you for your definition of heat and you were afraid to provide one since I already proved that science, here nearly 14 years into the 21st century remains unclear as to what heat is...if science isn't clear exactly what heat is, then it is just stupid to ask for my definition of heat as if there were a correct definition of heat. All you are doing, and have been doing now for 23 pages is weaseling...trying to find a way around the second law. It can't be done and I have grown quite tired of watching your weak struggles. Pity on my part brings this to an end.

 

[mamooth]

Feel good moments are gay.

Would any other deniers care to admit to being as adept at spotting gayness as Skook? Probably not. He seems unique in that aspect.

Skook, exactly how did you develop such an infallible gaydar? And do you really think this is the proper forum to advertise it in?