More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change

[Lagboltz]

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 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.

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

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

Yes, yes, we already know you don't believe in the science of the last century. You disagree with every scientist.

Don't you remember we covered you question about the definition of heat before. It is on the previous page of this tread.

You don't like models. But you believe that the energy between light bulbs cancels out leaving a dark streak. That should be testable, measurable, and provable. Why don't you take light bulbs to the nearest grade school and show it to the kids.

These sources 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..."

 

[Lagboltz]

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.

Do the experiment with two light bulbs.

 

[Lagboltz]

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?

The hard sciences are mathematical models. Sometimes it can be understood intuitively. Sometimes not. It's in the math as long as you know what the math means. You can't rely on intuition or gut feeling as you are doing.

 

[palerider]

Do the experiment with two light bulbs.

So you are saying that for all your bluster, you can't actually read a simple equation and state in words what it is saying?....or are you dodging to avoid acknowledging that I already stated exactly what the equation....no, exactly what the physical law says?

 

[palerider]

The hard sciences are mathematical models. Sometimes it can be understood intuitively. Sometimes not. It's in the math as long as you know what the math means. You can't rely on intuition or gut feeling as you are doing.

So you are acknowledging that you are operating from a position of belief...belief in mathematical models to which their predictions have never been observed, can not be measured, and are impossible to test. That is precisely what I have been saying all along.

 

[palerider]

These sources all say that bodies at equilibrium radiate equal energy toward each other.

And yet, that is not what the physical law says, nor is it what the equations that prove the physical law say...and there is no physical proof to support what those sources say. Like I said, you are arguing from a position of belief...a position of faith in mathematical models....nothing more and it bothers you that I won't enjoy and admire the emperors new clothes with you.

 

[Lagboltz]

So you are saying that for all your bluster, you can't actually read a simple equation and state in words what it is saying?....or are you dodging to avoid acknowledging that I already stated exactly what the equation....no, exactly what the physical law says?

Do the experiment with two light bulbs and see if you can find your black streak.

 

[Lagboltz]

So you are acknowledging that you are operating from a position of belief...belief in mathematical models to which their predictions have never been observed, can not be measured, and are impossible to test. That is precisely what I have been saying all along.

Yes of course. And in that regard you have been correct all along, but your failure is how to relate the mathematics to the experiments.

Every physicist knows that they work with mathematical models. Do you have a better idea? The equations of quantum electrodynamics have predicted the outcome of every experiment in electromagnetic theory. In some cases the comparison with mathematical model and experiment are one part per trillion - the limit of the experimental accuracy.

 

[Lagboltz]

And yet, that is not what the physical law says, nor is it what the equations that prove the physical law say...and there is no physical proof to support what those sources say. Like I said, you are arguing from a position of belief...a position of faith in mathematical models....nothing more and it bothers you that I won't enjoy and admire the emperors new clothes with you.

You are conflating faith as "unevidenced belief" with faith as "justified confidence". You are trying to personify me as the crux of your misunderstandings. As I said many times, I didn't invent modern physics, I'm only the messenger.

No scientist seriously uses the phrase "physical proof". They think in terms of consistency of the model with experiments. Yes, I quite understand that you are anti-science and think modern science is fantasy land. Only you can be satisfied with your own fantasies. The rest of us are not.

 

[palerider]

Do the experiment with two light bulbs and see if you can find your black streak.

So you can't read that simple equation and state what it says? Somehow that surprises me but then again.....

 

[palerider]

Yes of course. And in that regard you have been correct all along, but your failure is how to relate the mathematics to the experiments.

And you fail to relate your so called experiments to reality. Can you place yourself directly between the two bulbs at the microscopic level and actually see what is happening along the propagation vectors that would be involved? Of course you can't and you also ignore what the physical law itself says and instead, interpret it....change that, blatantly alter it to reflect what you believe.

Me, I accept the physical laws at face value without need for interpretation.

 

[palerider]

You are conflating faith as "unevidenced belief" with faith as "justified confidence". You are trying to personify me as the crux of your misunderstandings. As I said many times, I didn't invent modern physics, I'm only the messenger.

A messenger who apparently admires the emperor's new clothing and is peeved because I won't join you in your admiration.

No scientist seriously uses the phrase "physical proof".

And so it goes for post modern science. I can remember some decades ago when God supposedly died...quite a few scientists spoke of God and faith in terms of physical proof. Physical proof was the gold standard in science not so long ago...that would have been when the credibility of science was intact....now?...not so much.

They think in terms of consistency of the model with experiments. Yes, I quite understand that you are anti-science and think modern science is fantasy land. Only you can be satisfied with your own fantasies. The rest of us are not.

Just like the 3 blind men examining the elephant...their conclusions were consistent with what they thought they knew. Would you term those 3 blind men scientists? Is the person who sees that their conclusions are not consistent with every actual observation, and measurement ever made anti science?

Seems that you just hang the term anti science on anyone who won't join you in your admiration of the emperor's clothing...how anti science of you.

 

[Lagboltz]

So you can't read that simple equation and state what it says? Somehow that surprises me but then again.....

And you fail to relate your so called experiments to reality. Can you place yourself directly between the two bulbs at the microscopic level and actually see what is happening along the propagation vectors that would be involved? Of course you can't and you also ignore what the physical law itself says and instead, interpret it....change that, blatantly alter it to reflect what you believe.

Me, I accept the physical laws at face value without need for interpretation.

No you don't. You are still avoiding the question. Let's make it easier for you. Suppose two stars are in a tight orbit and are near the same temperature – within 5%. Would the radiation between the stars drop to 5% of what it would be otherwise?

 

[Lagboltz]

A messenger who apparently admires the emperor's new clothing and is peeved because I won't join you in your admiration.

Peeved? Naw. I'm enjoying seeing you abase yourself with your anti-science, and cling to physics 100 t0 150 years ago.

And so it goes for post modern science. I can remember some decades ago when God supposedly died...quite a few scientists spoke of God and faith in terms of physical proof. Physical proof was the gold standard in science not so long ago...that would have been when the credibility of science was intact....now?...not so much.

Naw. Mathematical modeling was always the gold standard for at least the last 100 years at the dawn of modern physics

Just like the 3 blind men examining the elephant...their conclusions were consistent with what they thought they knew. Would you term those 3 blind men scientists? Is the person who sees that their conclusions are not consistent with every actual observation, and measurement ever made anti science?
Seems that you just hang the term anti science on anyone who won't join you in your admiration of the emperor's clothing...how anti science of you.

Nope, I would term the three blind men as three blind paleriders, who are wearing the emperors old clothes which are quite tattered and revealing.

Here's more 150 year old science which you should embrace because it is not modern physics. Kirchoff believed in two way radiation between an object and it's surround.

Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, July 1860
Kirchhoff, G. (1860). "Ueber das Verhältniss zwischen dem Emissionsvermögen und dem Absorptionsvermögen der Körper für Wärme and Licht".Annalen der Physik und Chemie109 (2): 275–301. Translated by Guthrie, F. (1860). "On the relation between the radiating and absorbing powers of different bodies for light and heat". Philosophical Magazine. Series 4 20: 1–21.

A BODY placed within a covering whose temperature is the same as its own, is unaffected by radiation, and must therefore absorb as many rays as it emits. Hence it has long been concluded that, at the same temperature, the ratio between the radiating and absorbing powers of all bodies is the same...
​

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786446008642901?journalCode=tphm15
Look it up. It's on the first page.

That discovery of two way emission and absorption even predates the Stefan-Boltzmann law of 1879. So two way radiation is not modern physics, but I bet you will come up with some excuse not to accept that. I look forward to hearing it.

 

[palerider]

No you don't. You are still avoiding the question. Let's make it easier for you. Suppose two stars are in a tight orbit and are near the same temperature – within 5%. Would the radiation between the stars drop to 5% of what it would be otherwise?

Place yourself at the microscopic level between said stars without actually blocking any of the propagation vectors involved and tell me what you record. Till then, we must rely on what the physical laws say...not on what you wish they said...or on mathematical models which have, at this time, not superseded the physical laws and caused them to be rewritten....

Tell me, is it the emperor's waistcoat or his trousers that you think are most beautiful....or perhaps it is his accessories...hat?...shoes?...belt?...