More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change

[Lagboltz]

Backradiation has never been measured....measuring radiation with an instrument cooler than the radiator is not measuring back radiation...that is simply measuring radiation moving from warm to cool.

Of course it is measuring radiation from warm to cool! So you think the downward radiation disappears after the detector is removed?

Instruments do not need to be cooled to accurately measure radiation coming from the sun and according to warmer wackos more than twice the energy of the sun is being returned to the surface from the atmosphere

The sun has so much energy that the effect of the temperature of the instrument housing is infinitesimal in comparison to the sun. You should have been able to figure that out.

The earth is not a black body and again, the application of the SB equation to the atmosphere is one of the fundamental failures of climate science.

Emissivities
water 0.98
soil 0.93
ice 0.97
vegetation 0.98
dry sand 0.94

The emissivities are very close to maximum for the major areas of earth. Therefore the radiation of IR from the earth is largely blackbody, and follows the SB equation with an emission of power at 396 W/m2.

The sun only inputs 162 W/m2. How can that happen? Do you know?

Sorry...that's not what the equations say. This equation

states explicitly that the power of a radiator is equal to its emissivity X its area X the SB equation X the difference between the radiator and its surroundings....show me within that equation where you believe there is any description of two way energy flow.

So according to you, two objects at the same temperature do not emit any radiation at each other at all. That verifies your insisting that there is a black streak between light bulbs at the same wattage. Have you tried an observable, measurable, quantifiable experiment that shows a black streak between light bulbs?

 

[palerider]

Of course it is measuring radiation from warm to cool! So you think the downward radiation disappears after the detector is removed?

If you let the detector warm to the ambient temperature of the ground there will be nothing to record as energy doesn't move from cool to warm. Recording energy movement with a detector that is cooler than the radiator is not recording back radiation....nothing can record back radiation because it does not exist.

The sun has so much energy that the effect of the temperature of the instrument housing is infinitesimal in comparison to the sun. You should have been able to figure that out.

And yet, according to climate science, more than twice that amount of energy is being back radiated from the atmosphere to the surface and yet, the only way energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface can be measured is to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...which again isn't measuring back radiation but simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

The emissivities are very close to maximum for the major areas of earth. Therefore the radiation of IR from the earth is largely blackbody, and follows the SB equation with an emission of power at 396 W/m2.

Mental masturbation....nothing more nothing less. the earth is not a black body.

The sun only inputs 162 W/m2. How can that happen? Do you know?

Already explained that to you....the measurement of the earth's radiation is being taken at the top of the atmosphere...it is measuring all radiation exiting from the TOA which includes the radiation reflected by the atmosphere and the radiation reflected by the surface....you are fooling yourself with instrumentation....a typical error that is ubiquitous in climate science.

So according to you, two objects at the same temperature do not emit any radiation at each other at all. That verifies your insisting that there is a black streak between light bulbs at the same wattage. Have you tried an observable, measurable, quantifiable experiment that shows a black streak between light bulbs?

Not according to me...I am just stating what the equation says....and as far as your mythical black streak goes, you could never see it because your eye is cooler than the filaments of the bulbs...I can't describe what is happening in physical terms...we haven't even scratched the surface regarding the actual mechanism of energy transfer....you may as well be describing the aether....which is a much more advanced concept, for all its antiquity, than where we actually are regarding the actual mechanism for energy movement.

The equation says what it says and every observation ever made substantiates it....if we actually observed two way energy flow, then it would be time to modify the equation to describe two way energy flow rather than gross one way energy movement.

 

[palerider]

Hey old trapper...don't worry much about not being able to come up with an instance of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm in nature...it has never happened. Clearly you had just never actually considered the topic before and spoke off the top of your head. Typical of people who believe in AGW...they simply accept what they have been told and don't spend much time thinking about the subject for themselves...those who do don't take long to begin noticing the massive amounts of data manipulation....the claims that simply don't mesh with the laws of physics....and the fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here on earth without a very large fudge factor much less the temperature on any other planet with an atmosphere...there are hypotheses, however, based on physical laws, with no untestable, unobservable, unmeasurable magic multipliers that not only predict the temperature here, but also accurately predict the temperatures of every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere....

They don't get much attention because they don't make claims about the magical properties of greenhouse gasses and don't provide a basis for altering global economies...they simply look at the weight of the atmosphere, and the distance from the sun and then apply the ideal gas laws...actual observable, testable, measurable phenomena...imagine that.

 

[dogtowner]

Hey old trapper...don't worry much about not being able to come up with an instance of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm in nature...it has never happened. Clearly you had just never actually considered the topic before and spoke off the top of your head. Typical of people who believe in AGW...they simply accept what they have been told and don't spend much time thinking about the subject for themselves...those who do don't take long to begin noticing the massive amounts of data manipulation....the claims that simply don't mesh with the laws of physics....and the fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here on earth without a very large fudge factor much less the temperature on any other planet with an atmosphere...there are hypotheses, however, based on physical laws, with no untestable, unobservable, unmeasurable magic multipliers that not only predict the temperature here, but also accurately predict the temperatures of every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere....

They don't get much attention because they don't make claims about the magical properties of greenhouse gasses and don't provide a basis for altering global economies...they simply look at the weight of the atmosphere, and the distance from the sun and then apply the ideal gas laws...actual observable, testable, measurable phenomena...imagine that.

Science to the rescue.

 

[Lagboltz]

energy doesn't move from cool to warm.

In radiation physics, virtually every scientist disagrees with you. This is a derivation that occurs in many text books. It explicitly shows that radiant energy is both ways between object and background. Furthermore it explicitly states that the form you start with is actually a net radiation that is derived from the σεAT↑4 law. Here it is. It's simple algebra.

http://physicscatalyst.com/heat/heat_transfer_1.php
7. Stefan Boltzmann law

• The rate Urad at which an object emits energy via EM radiation depends on objects surface area A and temperature T in kelvin of that area and is given by
  Urad = σεAT↑4 . . . (2)
  
• The rate Uabs at which an object absorbs energy via thermal radiation from its environment with temperature Tenv (in kelvin) is
  Uabs = σεA(Tenv)↑4 . . . (3)
  Where ε is same as in equation (2)
  
• Since an object radiates energy to the environment and absorbs energy from environment its net energy exchange due to thermal radiation is
  
  U = Uabs - Urad
  
  = σεA(Tenv↑4 - T↑4) . . . (4)
  
• U is positive if net energy is being absorbed via radiation and negative if it is being lost via radiation.

Mental masturbation....nothing more nothing less. the earth is not a black body.

Of course it's not a black body. The emissivity, ε is part of the SB equation so that the equation works for objects like the earth that are near black body. You should have been able to figure that out.

you could never see it because your eye is cooler than the filaments of the bulbs.

Now you have lost track of everything that is sane. If the eye is cooler, than the filaments, you should be able to see it even by your bizarre understanding of Thermodynamics.

.I can't describe what is happening in physical terms.

Of course you can't because you have stated many times that you don't believe in Quantum Mechanics.

The equation says what it says and every observation ever made substantiates it....if we actually observed two way energy flow, then it would be time to modify the equation to describe two way energy flow rather than gross one way energy movement.

Yes the equation says what it says, and equation (4) above says it's two way energy flow. No modification is necessary.


.

 

[palerider]

In radiation physics, virtually every scientist disagrees with you. This is a derivation that occurs in many text books. It explicitly shows that radiant energy is both ways between object and background. Furthermore it explicitly states that the form you start with is actually a net radiation that is derived from the σεAT↑4 law. Here it is. It's simple algebra.

That is a derivation...not the physical law...a derivation which remains unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable.....nothing more than an ad hoc construct....and it doesn't "show" anything...it hypothesizes something which as I said, remains unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable. You do exemplify why so many people have been so thoroughly duped by climate science...I believe that you believe that the equation actually "shows" something rather than simply makes a claim that can't be tested or proven.

As to virtually every scientist disagreeing with me...so what? Wouldn't be the first time...about a dozen and a half years ago, practically every doctor on earth would haver disagreed with me when I stated in no uncertain terms that my stomach ulcer was not due to stress...I am one of the most stress free people on earth...angsting over stuff simply is not part of my make up...as it turns out, damned near every doctor on earth was wrong and I was right...

More recently, (about 8 years ago) damned near every doctor and researcher on earth would have disagreed with me when I told my family doctor that I wasn't worried about cholesterol and would not begin taking statin drugs because they would have no impact whatsoever on whether or not I ever developed heart disease...last check up, my doc finally stopped bugging me about my cholesterol and starting a course of statin drugs....clearly, they were wrong and I was right again...I actually take time to read what the research shows and don't base my position on what someone who is supposed to be trustworthy tells me...

Back radiation does not exist...it has never been measured....it can not be detected...it is a physical impossibility....whether scientists believe it or not is irrelevant to me....every scientist on earth has been wrong on topic after topic after topic...science is notorious for falling into groupthink....

Now you have lost track of everything that is sane. If the eye is cooler, than the filaments, you should be able to see it even by your bizarre understanding of Thermodynamics.

Not good at thinking are you?... some tiny object between your eye and the sun...do you think you will see the object...of course not...the sun will overwhelm your ability to see the tiny object..there is a real world out there where you can actually see things happen...observe them, measure them, quantify them....and see that ad hoc mathematical constructs are worth almost as much as the paper they are written on.

Of course you can't because you have stated many times that you don't believe in Quantum Mechanics.

Actually, I have never stated any such thing, but lying is why I put you on ignore in the first place...care to try again? I have said that at present quantum mechanics is for the most part nothing but stories we tell ourselves about things that we don't yet begin to understand....and that in a few hundred years, people will look back on what we thought quantum mechanics was with the same sort of nostalgia for us as we look back at our quaint old ancestors and what they believed they knew about the workings of the physical world.

Yes the equation says what it says, and equation (4) above says it's two way energy flow. No modification is necessary.

Sorry, but it doesn't....sorry you can't read an equation...if it were describing two way energy flow it would look like this...

...

Some atmospheric physics texts used in the climate science curriculum actually use that equation in an attempt to justify the idea of back radiation...problem is that in physics, since equations are actually describing the physical world, if you are going to alter an equation, you must justify the alteration...no justification has ever been made for applying the distributive property to an equation that is already elegant...aside from that, it is just bad math....why would someone apply the distributive property and complicate an equation that has already been reduced....typical of climate science...The SB equation....all versions of it describe one way gross energy transfer....

 

[Lagboltz]

That is a derivation...not the physical law.... You do exemplify why so many people have been so thoroughly duped by climate science.

It certainly is a derivation. It is a compacting of two processes: Emission and absorption. Duped? You ain't thinkin real good. So you think that in 1879 Stefan was trying to dupe the climate science of over 100 years later! Wowee. You must think Stefan was a prescient super "duper."

Back radiation does not exist...it has never been measured....it can not be detected...it is a physical impossibility.

Oh yes it has been detected.

Not good at thinking are you?... some tiny object between your eye and the sun...do you think you will see the object...of course not...the sun will overwhelm your ability to see the tiny object..

You were saying there is a dark streak between two filaments of a light bulb, and now you are bringing up the sun? C'mon focus focus focus. Not good at thinking are you? (That's what you said, so back at you.)

...ad hoc mathematical constructs are worth almost as much as the paper they are written on...

And yet you are trying to use a mathematical construct in the SB law (incorrectly I might add.) Hypocrisy abounds.

Actually, I have never stated any such thing, but lying is why I put you on ignore in the first place...care to try again?

Me lying? Methinks you have oft stated your disbelief in quantum mechanics. Let me remind you of the things you said:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/settled-science.17472/page-8

Post 34: "quantum mechanics is not proven science."
Post 34 "And you believe in a hoax....You act as if quantum mechanics were scientific law"
Post 39: "Quantum mechanics is an ad hoc construct that attempts to explain things we can't explain"
Post 40 "Do I question QM?.....damned right"
Post 47: "it has to do with post modern science abandoning reality for fantasy"
Post 57: "post modern science has left the realm of reality and entered into a fantasy land"
Post 47: "Once you have proven the existence of photons, then we can move on"
Post 57: About those photons that you seem to be so sure exist?​

whether scientists believe it or not is irrelevant to me.

Surprise surprise!

Sorry, but it doesn't....sorry you can't read an equation...if it were describing two way energy flow it would look like this...

...

That is what is in equation (4) that I posted.
U = Uabs - Urad
= σεA(Tenv↑4 - T↑4) . . . . . . (4)

That is combining a one way absorption with a one way emission to get a two way net. It is so easy. You must be either totally dense, or maybe a troll. Yes, that's it!

Well that's it for today. No more feeding the troll.
If you are hungry again come back tomorrow, ya hear. If you still have some brazen misunderstanding I will continue feed my troll some more.

 

[palerider]

It certainly is a derivation. It is a compacting of two processes: Emission and absorption. Duped? You ain't thinkin real good. So you think that in 1879 Stefan was trying to dupe the climate science of over 100 years later! Wowee. You must think Stefan was a prescient super "duper."

Sorry guy....dream all you like...there is a reason that the SB equation describes gross one way energy flow.

Oh yes it has been detected.

Nope...never has...doesn't register on an instrument that isn't cooled to a temperature lower than the radiator because it isn't happening...and when the instrument is cooler than the radiator, it isn't back radiation that is being measured...it is just energy moving from warm to cool.

You were saying there is a dark streak between two filaments of a light bulb, and now you are bringing up the sun? C'mon focus focus focus. Not good at thinking are you? (That's what you said, so back at you.)

I am saying what the equation states...that dark streak is a product of your own terribly flawed and faith based understanding of energy movement.

And yet you are trying to use a mathematical construct in the SB law (incorrectly I might add.) Hypocrisy abounds.

Nope...just saying what the equation states and what every observation and measurement ever made confirms...

Me lying? Methinks you have oft stated your disbelief in quantum mechanics. Let me remind you of the things you said:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/settled-science.17472/page-8

Post 34: "quantum mechanics is not proven science."
Post 34 "And you believe in a hoax....You act as if quantum mechanics were scientific law"
Post 39: "Quantum mechanics is an ad hoc construct that attempts to explain things we can't explain"
Post 40 "Do I question QM?.....damned right"
Post 47: "it has to do with post modern science abandoning reality for fantasy"
Post 57: "post modern science has left the realm of reality and entered into a fantasy land"
Post 47: "Once you have proven the existence of photons, then we can move on"
Post 57: About those photons that you seem to be so sure exist?​

Surprise surprise!

And no surprise again that you lied...so where do you suppose I said that I don't believe in QM? I have certainly questioned it....I have said that it is mostly stories put in place acting as explanations for things we don't understand yet...I have said that it is not scientific law...I have said that much of it remains unobservable, untestable, and unprovable...but where in there have I ever said that I don't believe in QM? You interpret things to mean what you wish they meant rather than simply taking them at face value....which leads you down the wrong path all to often.

That is what is in equation (4) that I posted.
U = Uabs - Urad
= σεA(Tenv↑4 - T↑4) . . . . . . (4)

But your equation is not what is found in the SB law...it wrongly, and inappropriately applies the distributive property to an equation that doesn't need it and with no justification...it is false...it is unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable...it is an ad hoc construct developed to support a narrative...nothing more.

That is combining a one way absorption with a one way emission to get a two way net. It is so easy. You must be either totally dense, or maybe a troll. Yes, that's it!

Sorry guy....that is about as goofy as it gets...but I do believe that you believe it. Interesting, isn't it, that the emission from one radiator can be measured readily with an instrument at ambient temperature while the emission from the absorber back to the radiator can not be measured unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the absorber....it does prove that the absorber is also emitting, and it also proves that the only place the absorber emits to is to places cooler than itself.

 

[Lagboltz]

Sorry guy....dream all you like...there is a reason that the SB equation describes gross one way energy flow.

Nope. All scientists know SB is two way flow. So you are alone in your dreaming.

Nope...never has...doesn't register on an instrument that isn't cooled to a temperature lower than the radiator because it isn't happening...and when the instrument is cooler than the radiator, it isn't back radiation that is being measured...it is just energy moving from warm to cool.

That's just a dance. You made my point: "just energy moving from warm to cool" is actually downward, or back radiation hitting the detector.

I am saying what the equation states...that dark streak is a product of your own terribly flawed and faith based understanding of energy movement.

You are back-peddling.
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/global-mean-temperature.15660/page-5
In post 65 you stated,

"Yes, the radiation cancels out, or will eventually. If you measure the temperature of the two filaments and they are the same, then the radiation between the two are canceling out."​

No radiation between light bulb filaments means dark streak. Ya can't dance around that.

And no surprise again that you lied...so where do you suppose I said that I don't believe in QM? I have certainly questioned it....I have said that it is mostly stories put in place acting as explanations for things we don't understand yet...I have said that it is not scientific law...I have said that much of it remains unobservable, untestable, and unprovable...but where in there have I ever said that I don't believe in QM? You interpret things to mean what you wish they meant rather than simply taking them at face value....which leads you down the wrong path all to often.

There. You said it again. You don't believe in QM.

But your equation is not what is found in the SB law...it wrongly, and inappropriately applies the distributive property to an equation that doesn't need it and with no justification...it is false...it is unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable...it is an ad hoc construct developed to support a narrative...nothing more.

My equation is not found in the SB law???? That is precisely where it came from: SB law. How can you say simple arithmetic is false. That is totally dumb.

Sorry guy....that is about as goofy as it gets...but I do believe that you believe it.

Goofy?? You call an important advance in thermodynamics goofy?? All scientists that accept that advance are goofy?? As I said, you don't believe in quantum mechanics. So that explains why you think what scientists accept is goofy. Yeah, goofy Einstein, Planck, Schrodinger, Feynman ... They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

In rejecting QM you are desperately trying to defend your disbelief in AGW. You don't need to do that. It just makes you look silly, or goofy, or more likely, a hungry troll.

 

[palerider]

Nope. All scientists know SB is two way flow. So you are alone in your dreaming.

"All scientists" have thought that they have known all sorts of things...till they didn't.

That's just a dance. You made my point: "just energy moving from warm to cool" is actually downward, or back radiation hitting the detector.

Energy can move in any direction so long as it is moving towards a cooler region....up, down, sideways, doesn't matter. If you let the detector warm to ambient, then it is no longer detecting energy from the atmosphere because energy is no longer moving downward as there is no longer an area of cool for it to move to.....set a cooled instrument and an instrument at ambient temperature 3 feet apart and start measuring....the instrument at ambient temperature will not record downward radiation while the cooled instrument will....that is physical, observable, quantifiable evidence that energy only moves spontaneously to cooler regions and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp it...you look for a reason like "interference" or some such thing to explain to yourself why one is measuring radiation and the other is not.

You are back-peddling.
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/global-mean-temperature.15660/page-5
In post 65 you stated,

"Yes, the radiation cancels out, or will eventually. If you measure the temperature of the two filaments and they are the same, then the radiation between the two are canceling out."​

That is the nature of waves of the same frequency...you still haven't proven the existence of photons while every radio, microwave, etc. engineer knows all about the fact that EM energy transmitted at like frequencies tend to cancel out if vectors are not very carefully considered....you claiming that light is not EM energy?​

No radiation between light bulb filaments means dark streak. Ya can't dance around that.

Interpret however you like, and make up whatever story makes gives you comfort....if you like to imagine a black streak go ahead and imagine it...and imagine that since you can't see it it does not exist...then ask yourself if some sort of phenomena is visible or detectable where two crossing microwave beams cancel each other out...and maybe wonder why you imagine such a thing about light bulbs.

There. You said it again. You don't believe in QM.

Lie to yourself all you like...again, if that sort of thing is comforts you and you need comforting that badly. Questioning a thing...and being dubious about the stories that are put in place to explain phenomena that we really don't understand is skepticism...not disbelief....Skepticism is part and parcel of being intelligent....simply accepting what you are told with no physical proof, and no possibility of physical proof in the foreseeable future is faith. As I have said, QM will be around in 100 or 500 years and it will look very different than what we believe we know today...our great great great grandchildren will look back on us with the same sort humor regarding what we believe today as we look back at science of 100 or 500 years ago. If you were able to read for comprehension, you would take from that that I do indeed believe that the field of QM exists...but that it is at its embryonic stage and will change a great deal as time moves on....the stores regarding the underlying mechanisms of what we think we know are just that....stories.

My equation is not found in the SB law???? That is precisely where it came from: SB law. How can you say simple arithmetic is false. That is totally dumb.

Sorry, but the SB law says P= not Uabs - Urad.....that is an ad hoc construct...not observable, not measurable, not detectable...it is a fabrication to support a narrative...nothing more....it is a story.

Goofy?? You call an important advance in thermodynamics goofy?? All scientists that accept that advance are goofy?? As I said, you don't believe in quantum mechanics. So that explains why you think what scientists accept is goofy. Yeah, goofy Einstein, Planck, Schrodinger, Feynman ... They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

No..when an important advance in thermodynamics happens, I will appreciate it....what is goofy is believing that your unmeasurable, undetectable, untestable, ad hoc construct is an important advancement in thermodynamics....it is just a story supported by another story.....there isn't the first bit of actual evidence that it is real...and every observation ever made indicates that it is false...but you believe it to be an important advancement in thermodynamics...that is, in fact, goofy.

In rejecting QM you are desperately trying to defend your disbelief in AGW. You don't need to do that. It just makes you look silly, or goofy, or more likely, a hungry troll.

Again with the lies.....do you need self comfort that badly? Observational evidence says that your QM belief is misplaced.....when we start observing the phenomena that your mathematical constructs predict then we can start talking about what we have observed....to date, the spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm has never been observed. So that is where we stand....you have a mathematical model...an ad hoc construct....an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model and I have every observation ever made....I like my position. I can refer to actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support my position while you can only point to ad hoc constructs and mind experiments that sadly, can never be duplicated in the real world.

 

[Lagboltz]

"All scientists" have thought that they have known all sorts of things...till they didn't.

Yes we know you disparage science.

Energy can move in any direction so long as it is moving towards a cooler region.

You are going to have to be more specific because that is not true for photons or a cold snowball hitting a warm face. Give me a link that says radiation can't move anywhere.

If you let the detector warm to ambient, then it is no longer detecting energy from the atmosphere because energy is no longer moving downward as there is no longer an area of cool for it to move to.....set a cooled instrument and an instrument at ambient temperature 3 feet apart and start measuring....the instrument at ambient temperature will not record downward radiation while the cooled instrument will....that is physical, observable, quantifiable evidence that energy only moves spontaneously to cooler regions and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp it...you look for a reason like "interference" or some such thing to explain to yourself why one is measuring radiation and the other is not.

No theory in science says that. Give me a scientific link that says that.

Sorry, but the SB law says P= not Uabs - Urad.....that is an ad hoc construct...not observable, not measurable, not detectable...it is a fabrication to support a narrative...nothing more....it is a story.

Not again! It's such simple arithmetic!!! That is the definition of the net power, P = radiation in minus radiation out.

No..when an important advance in thermodynamics happens, I will appreciate it....what is goofy is believing that your unmeasurable, undetectable, untestable, ad hoc construct is an important advancement in thermodynamics....it is just a story supported by another story.....there isn't the first bit of actual evidence that it is real...and every observation ever made indicates that it is false...but you believe it to be an important advancement in thermodynamics...that is, in fact, goofy.

If you want to make up stories to show you don't want to believe in science, that's the sort of thing trolls do.

Again with the lies.....do you need self comfort that badly? Observational evidence says that your QM belief is misplaced.....when we start observing the phenomena that your mathematical constructs predict then we can start talking about what we have observed....to date, the spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm has never been observed. So that is where we stand....you have a mathematical model...an ad hoc construct....an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model and I have every observation ever made....I like my position. I can refer to actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support my position while you can only point to ad hoc constructs and mind experiments that sadly, can never be duplicated in the real world.

We know already you don't believe in modern science. What's ironic is for the troll to state a fake interpretation of science, and then use science models that he doesn't believe to conjure a vain attempt to try to prove that fake interpretation. That's food for thought, and food for a troll.

.

 

[palerider]

Yes we know you disparage science.

Only bad science...and science that pretends to know what it doesn't

You are going to have to be more specific because that is not true for photons or a cold snowball hitting a warm face. Give me a link that says radiation can't move anywhere.

Don't need a link...the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...you think a snowball to a face is spontaneous energy movement?...figures...your idiot hot box mind experiment was on the same level....all work all the time and then the claim that the energy moved spontaneously...pretend to be as smart as you like, but when your best example is a snowball hitting a face, it is clear that you are as "in the dark" as old trapper with his claim that cold water off ice running into warmer water is spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm...

No theory in science says that. Give me a scientific link that says that.

Of course it does...and every observation ever made bears it out...the second law says precisely that...energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm....let the detector warm to a temperature warmer that the atmosphere and it stops recoding radiation from the atmosphere because energy won't flow spontaneously from cool to warm...while the cooled instrument next door is still recording because it is cooler that the atmosphere and the energy from the atmosphere is still moving towards it...interesting that you don't seem to be able to square every observation ever made with exactly what the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

Not again! It's such simple arithmetic!!! That is the definition of the net power, P = radiation in minus radiation out.

Your false SB equation says that....Sorry guy... the actual SB equation describes a one way gross energy flow...not a net two way flow and so far as I am aware, it is still a physical law as it is written while your equation is just so much scratch on paper...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable.....and every observation ever made bears out a one way gross energy flow...two way net flow has never been observed or measured.

If you want to make up stories to show you don't want to believe in science, that's the sort of thing trolls do.

That is precisely what you are doing....making up stories about physical events which have never been observed, measured, or quantified...stories that derive from unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...pretending that they are real...believing that they are real...believing that what they describe is actually happening even though what they describe has never been observed...

We know already you don't believe in modern science. What's ironic is for the troll to state a fake interpretation of science, and then use science models that he doesn't believe to conjure a vain attempt to try to prove that fake interpretation. That's food for thought, and food for a troll.

.

I take the claims of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models with a very large grain of salt...especially when every observation ever made runs contrary to them...you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that it is you and yours who are the trolls, misinterpreting, falsifying, fabricating, and plain old lying when necessary in an effort to have everyone believe your in your fantasy.

 

[Lagboltz]

Only bad science...and science that pretends to know what it doesn't

Don't need a link...the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...you think a snowball to a face is spontaneous energy movement?...figures...your idiot hot box mind experiment was on the same level....all work all the time and then the claim that the energy moved spontaneously...pretend to be as smart as you like, but when your best example is a snowball hitting a face, it is clear that you are as "in the dark" as old trapper with his claim that cold water off ice running into warmer water is spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm...

Of course it does...and every observation ever made bears it out...the second law says precisely that...energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm....let the detector warm to a temperature warmer that the atmosphere and it stops recoding radiation from the atmosphere because energy won't flow spontaneously from cool to warm...while the cooled instrument next door is still recording because it is cooler that the atmosphere and the energy from the atmosphere is still moving towards it...interesting that you don't seem to be able to square every observation ever made with exactly what the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

Your false SB equation says that....Sorry guy... the actual SB equation describes a one way gross energy flow...not a net two way flow and so far as I am aware, it is still a physical law as it is written while your equation is just so much scratch on paper...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable.....and every observation ever made bears out a one way gross energy flow...two way net flow has never been observed or measured.

That is precisely what you are doing....making up stories about physical events which have never been observed, measured, or quantified...stories that derive from unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...pretending that they are real...believing that they are real...believing that what they describe is actually happening even though what they describe has never been observed...

I take the claims of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models with a very large grain of salt...especially when every observation ever made runs contrary to them...you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that it is you and yours who are the trolls, misinterpreting, falsifying, fabricating, and plain old lying when necessary in an effort to have everyone believe your in your fantasy.

Your post repeats essentially two things.
First you don't believe in quantum mechanics or modern science.
Secondly, you continue to say "energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm," and you have no source that says that.

Science says thermal energy, or net energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm objects.

If they don't use those two adjectives, the implication or context is there, especially for scientists who understand thermodynamics and radiation physics. You have no link or source that says otherwise because there is none.

You say you don't need a link. I say you do since you disagree with what every scientist says. You have no link that says photons cannot hit certain objects, when all scientists know that is false.

That makes you a troll.

 

[palerider]

Your post repeats essentially two things.
First you don't believe in quantum mechanics or modern science.

Interpret to yourself all you like, but continue lying and I will put you back on ignore...life's to short to constantly have to point out lies being told about one's position...better to just not talk to people who don't seem to be able to help themselves...

Believing that QM is wrong in certain areas is not a disbelief...it is a lack of confidence...especially when what they claim runs contrary to every observation ever made.

Secondly, you continue to say "energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm," and you have no source that says that.

Not just won't..can't.

Science says thermal energy, or net energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm objects.

Science has said lots of things that turned out to be patently wrong....accepting what science says when their claims run contrary to every observation ever made is just stupid...at this point remains unclear as to whether heat is a form of energy in and of itself, or whether heat is simply the evidence of energy moving from one object to another object...and you then tell me what "science" says? Misplaced faith is just sad...how many people are living on medication related to their cholesterol that they can not safely stop now even though the meds do nothing but endanger their health...post modern science is broken..it has left the realm of test and observe and gone into the realm of belief in mathematical models and the tragic fact is that modern scientists aren't even that good at math any more...misunderstanding and misuse of statistics abounds in all fields of science as admitted by science...... Statistics...the very basis of your belief and science itself admits that it isn't very good at the field.

If they don't use those two adjectives, the implication or context is there, especially for scientists who understand thermodynamics and radiation physics. You have no link or source that says otherwise because there is none.

As I said...I only have the very laws of thermodynamics...they make no mention of net energy movements...they state categorically that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm and every observation ever made supports my position...You believe in an unprovable, untestable, unmeasurable model...nothing more.

You say you don't need a link. I say you do since you disagree with what every scientist says. You have no link that says photons cannot hit certain objects, when all scientists know that is false.

Say what you like....believe what you like...lie about my position one more time and I will leave you to it....I have every observation ever made to support my position regardless of what "science" says....science has an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...and that is where you place your faith...good for you...when you can show me an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm then we can discuss the merits of your model...unfortunately, you will never have such an example.

That makes you a troll.

Pushing belief in an unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable model over every observation ever made makes you a troll...a troll of the worst sort...the sort of troll that is a zealot insisting that others take up his faith.

 

[Lagboltz]

My post said two major things:

Your post repeats essentially two things.
First you don't believe in quantum mechanics or modern science.
Secondly, you continue to say "energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm," and you have no source that says that.

This is your reply to the first point:

Interpret to yourself all you like, but continue lying and I will put you back on ignore...life's to short to constantly have to point out lies being told about one's position...better to just not talk to people who don't seem to be able to help themselves...

Believing that QM is wrong in certain areas is not a disbelief...it is a lack of confidence...especially when what they claim runs contrary to every observation ever made.

"Lack of confidence" you say? Not when you said in the Settled Science thread:

Post 34: "quantum mechanics is not proven science."
Post 34 "And you believe in a hoax....You act as if quantum mechanics were scientific law"
Post 39: "Quantum mechanics is an ad hoc construct that attempts to explain things we can't explain"
Post 40 "Do I question QM?.....damned right"
Post 47: "it has to do with post modern science abandoning reality for fantasy"
Post 57: "post modern science has left the realm of reality and entered into a fantasy land"
Post 47: "Once you have proven the existence of photons, then we can move on"
Post 57: About those photons that you seem to be so sure exist?
​

Those were blanket statements on QM, a hoax, fantasy, and you call me a liar? I think it's the other way around. So you want to put me on ignore. Can't take the heat eh?

My second point was asking you twice for a link that says spontaneous energy movement in radiation refers to one one direction and is not bidirectional. You ignored it and went on a long digression.

The bottom line is that you have no link and you know you don't, and so you are acting like a troll with a continuous bluster that never gets you anywhere.