More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change

[palerider]

You didn't answer the question, what do you think happens with radiation between two stars? They can get extremely close with an orbit period of 5 days and even down to 2.5 days. What will happen to the intense heat of the stars in the areas adjacent to each other? Will they stop radiating between them?

Look to the second law of thermodynamics....energy won't move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object.... You don't need to know the underlying mechanism for it to still be what happens...We don't know what drives gravity but there it is, every time you drop something. We know that there has never been an observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...that is why they call it a physical law...call up the guy in charge of the second law of thermodynamics and tell him about your mind experiment forcing hot air into a cold box....that is sure to get the second law rewritten....Let me know when they finish editing.

 

[Lagboltz]

Pure mental masturbation...does it make you feel better? If so, great, clearly it doesn't take much to get you off...a bit of fantasy...a bit of mathematical sleight of hand and whooohoooo you are there. No wonder you believe in the AGW hoax...interested in some beachfront property in Steamboat Springs?

C'mon. Cool down. I didn't invent the proper interpretation of the SB equation. It is in text books, lectures, etc. It takes a lot of hubris for you to say that all physicists are doing mental masturbation? Don't blame me, I'm only the messenger.

 

[Lagboltz]

Look to the second law of thermodynamics....energy won't move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object.... You don't need to know the underlying mechanism for it to still be what happens...We don't know what drives gravity but there it is, every time you drop something. We know that there has never been an observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...that is why they call it a physical law...call up the guy in charge of the second law of thermodynamics and tell him about your mind experiment forcing hot air into a cold box....that is sure to get the second law rewritten....Let me know when they finish editing.

Now, now, you are deflecting from the question.
What will happen to the intense heat of very close binary system stars in the areas adjacent to each other? Will they stop radiating between them if they are the same temperature?

 

[Lagboltz]

Here are some more sources for you to ponder. They all say that bodies at equilibrium radiate equal energy toward each other.

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

http://www.bing.com/knows/search?q=thermal equilibrium&mkt=zh-cn
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, no matter how far apart, or what partially obstructive, reflective, or refractive, obstacles lie in their path of radiative exchange, not moving relative to one another, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

http://everything.explained.today/Kirchhoff's_law_of_thermal_radiation/
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, thenit will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiationequal amounts of heat with each other..."

 

[palerider]

Here are some more sources for you to ponder. They all say that bodies at equilibrium radiate equal energy toward each other.

I am aware of what you believe...and I am aware of what post modern science believes...I am sure that you can come up with literally hundreds of sources that will support your belief...but the fact remains that spontaneous movement of energy from a cooler object to a warmer object has never been observed...the second law of thermodynamics still states what it sates and the SB equations still state what they state. These "beliefs" that result from mathematical models have not resulted in the observation of energy moving from cool to warm, nor have they resulted in the rewriting of any physical law.

Again, let me know when the Physical laws that still state that energy exchange is a one way gross exchange are rewritten....till then, ally have is belief.

 

[palerider]

C'mon. Cool down. I didn't invent the proper interpretation of the SB equation. It is in text books, lectures, etc. It takes a lot of hubris for you to say that all physicists are doing mental masturbation? Don't blame me, I'm only the messenger.

The equation doesn't require interpretation..they are as straight forward and elegant as can be. Anyone who is interpreting those equations to mean anything other than what they say is a fraud. Look at the equations....what part of them do you believe requires "interpretation"?

 

[palerider]

Now, now, you are deflecting from the question.
What will happen to the intense heat of very close binary system stars in the areas adjacent to each other? Will they stop radiating between them if they are the same temperature?

Again, I don't need to know the underlying mechanism any more than I need to know the underlying mechanism for gravity...which we still don't know....every observation ever made tells us that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm.... and in what universe would a binary pair be of the exact same temperature?....the same one in which your thought experiment didn't involve any work?

You keep coming up with these what if questions....open your eyes and realize that you must do that because the sort of exchange you are claiming has never....not once...ever been observed or measured. That sort of energy exchange only exists in unprovable, unobservable, unmeasurable mathematical models..

 

[Lagboltz]

I am sure that you can come up with literally hundreds of sources that will support your belief.

It is the discoveries of the community of scientists that is important. I'm telling you about their discoveries. If you don't like what science discovers that's your problem.

the second law of thermodynamics still states what it sates and the SB equations still state what they state.

The SB equation is a newer discovery in radiation that supersedes the much older idea of Clausius and heat engines that you cling to. C'mon get out of the dark ages of science; the new modern physics shed a new light on the old ideas that you stuck in.

These "beliefs" that result from mathematical models have not resulted in the observation of energy moving from cool to warm, nor have they resulted in the rewriting of any physical law.

All of hard science is mathematical models. These models lead to lasers, microcircuits, and the internet that you are now using. Mathematical models of physics are your friend. Embrace them. Come out of the dark side.

Again, let me know when the Physical laws that still state that energy exchange is a one way gross exchange are rewritten....till then, ally have is belief.

The physical laws never stated that energy exchange is one way. They state that heat exchange is one way.

 

[Lagboltz]

The equation doesn't require interpretation..they are as straight forward and elegant as can be. Anyone who is interpreting those equations to mean anything other than what they say is a fraud. Look at the equations....what part of them do you believe requires "interpretation"?

Right, the SB equation does not require interpretation. Yet you are interpreting them to mean the ludicrous idea that the energy between light bulbs cancels out to leave a dark streak. Talk about weird interpretation!

 

[Lagboltz]

Again, I don't need to know the underlying mechanism

I can see that. You want to cling to old belief and old laws that you don't understand and don't want to understand, all because of your obsession about AGW. I will tell you that science wants to understand the underlying mechanism, but you are anti-science.

every observation ever made tells us that energy does not move spontaneously from cool to warm

You are wrong.

in what universe would a binary pair be of the exact same temperature?

Still avoiding the question. Let's make it easier for you. Suppose they are near the same temperature – within 5%. Would the radiation between them drop to 5% of what it would be otherwise?

 

[Johnlox]

so there's been no warming for what, 18 years despite increased CO2 and still there is a preponderance of evidence ?

I'm not sure why I was quoted in your response. Can you help me understand? Thanks! I'm often dim.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm not sure why I was quoted in your response. Can you help me understand? Thanks! I'm often dim.

Poor quote management on my part, sorry but that.

 

[palerider]

It is the discoveries of the community of scientists that is important. I'm telling you about their discoveries. If you don't like what science discovers that's your problem.

The problem is, that in most cases, we aren't actually talking about observed, measured discoveries...we are talking about untestable, unmeasurable, unprovable mathematical models...those are not actual discoveries till they can be confirmed by reality. Yet another example of how post modern science fools itself with instrumentation.

The SB equation is a newer discovery in radiation that supersedes the much older idea of Clausius and heat engines that you cling to. C'mon get out of the dark ages of science; the new modern physics shed a new light on the old ideas that you stuck in.

The fact remains that neither heat nor energy have ever been observed spontaneously moving from cool to warm...and the physical law still states as much.

All of hard science is mathematical models. These models lead to lasers, microcircuits, and the internet that you are now using. Mathematical models of physics are your friend. Embrace them. Come out of the dark side.

Perhaps they do, but they haven't resulted in any observation of either heat or energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

The physical laws never stated that energy exchange is one way. They state that heat exchange is one way.

Is heat a form of energy, or is heat evidence of energy moving from one place to another?

 

[palerider]

Right, the SB equation does not require interpretation. Yet you are interpreting them to mean the ludicrous idea that the energy between light bulbs cancels out to leave a dark streak. Talk about weird interpretation!

Sorry guy, it is you who is interpreting...

That equation states that the power radiated by an object that is not a perfect black body which is radiating into cooler surroundings is equal to the emissivity of the object, times the SB constant, times the area of the radiator, times the difference of the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power...

That is all it says. There is no provision for the radiator to be receiving anything....it is a literal description of one way gross energy flow. Any suggestion that it says anything other than that is an interpretation.

 

[palerider]

I can see that. You want to cling to old belief and old laws that you don't understand and don't want to understand, all because of your obsession about AGW. I will tell you that science wants to understand the underlying mechanism, but you are anti-science.

So are you claiming that you know the underlying mechanism of energy transfer? Really? You are that confused and deluded that you believe you know what remains unknown to science? Do you also claim to know the underlying mechanism that drives gravity?

You are wrong.

You are deluded.