"Settled Science"??

[palerider]

Nope. All my statements came from reliable sources such as universities. They originally came from Pauli, Einstein, and many others who formulated radiation thermodynamics in terms of quantum mechanics. All the disparaging remarks you make are toward the giants of modern physics, not me, the messenger. On the other hand, you reek of anti-science.


The fact that you reject quantum mechanics reeks of anti-science


The fact that you think modern science is fantasy reeks of anti-science


The fact that you need proof to believe photons exist reeks of anti-science.


Your quote came from a site describing refrigerators.

Here is the irony: You reject quantum mechanics, modern physics, and photons, yet you embrace the second law as it was formulated by Clausius in 1850 for refrigerators.

Why do you embrace refrigerator physics of the 1800's and not modern science of the 1900's?

Pale Pale, we are dealing with black bodies and radiation thermodynamics. Find a reference to the second law that refers to EM radiation. I showed you a good site. Thermal radiation is the topic.


I did but you rejected it because you reject quantum mechanics, modern science, and photons. Quit stalling and show me proof that your statement is true for radiation thermodynamics then we can move on.

There is science, and there is post modern science. Far greater minds than yours have said that post modern science has some serious deficits.

As to radiation....again I ask. When are you going to provide an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object.

 

[palerider]

It is not up to me to prove it. It is the physicists of the past two centuries who have already proved it. I can't take credit for what they proved. This is their proof.

Of course it isn't up to you to prove...it is up to you to believe. And if it has already been proven, then perhaps you can provide the observed, measured example that I have been asking for.

power radiated from an object was measured by Dulong and Petit, in 1817 and later by Tyndall in 1865. More experimental data came from Ericsson (1872) and Draper (1878).

So what? When did I say that objects don't radiate? Is dishonesty the only form of argument you know?

1879 Stefan's used the data and found purely through experimental means that the total power radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's temperature, T, measured in Kelvins. Stefan's discovery was clarified and theoretically verified by Boltzman and named the Stefan-Boltzman law. In short, the law is:

And when did I say otherwise? You are arguing against strawmen here.

experiments show that radiation law depends only on the body temperature and is independent of temperatures outside the body. Lambert's experiments show that the radiation broadcasts in all directions. Nothing in the experiments or theory show that radiant energy is inhibited from from striking warmer bodies.

Then show the observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object. You claim that it has been experimentally proven....lets see the actual example. Or perhaps you are reading something into the experiments that isn't actually there...or perhaps you are simply pulling statements out of your ass.

if a warmer body was present, that warmer body would also transmit radiant energy in all directions according to Stefan-Boltzman and Lambert's laws. The difference between the two radiant energies from those bodies shows that the second law is preserved in that the colder body always receives more radiant energy than it transmits, and thus gets warmer.

Radiation is a one way street. I asked you to show the backradiation in the SB equation...I can't help but notice that you didn't. You do fine right up to the point where you actually provide observed evidence to support your claims and then you fall right on your face and switch to hypotheticals as if they were real.

, since you claim BB radiation can't go in certain directions you go against well established theory and empirical evidence that proves you wrong and proves those scientists were right.

Again, you claim empirical evidence. Emprical means that it has been observed. OK. Show me an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object. I think that all that is being proven here is that you don't know the difference between seeing and believing.

Pale, it is up to you to tell why you think all the experimental data and theory for the Stefan-Boltzman law combined with Lambert's law would be violated, and why you think you know more than those scientists.

You have made claims of actual observation of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object even though the SB equations make no claim of back radiation. Till you can show some examples of the things you claim that have been observed, I am afraid that the ball is still in your court. The fact that you can't provide the claimed observed measured examples makes me seriously wonder why you aren't a skeptic regarding the claims of climate pseudoscience as well. Don't you think that if the things you claim have been observed and measured had actually been observed and measured that the internet would be choked with them? Instead the internet is full of people like you making claims that they can't substantiate.

 

[Lagboltz]

There is science, and there is post modern science. Far greater minds than yours have said that post modern science has some serious deficits.

Poor poor peevish Pale. It is really too bad that Plank, Einstein, Stefan, Boltzmann, Feynman or others can't be on this forum so you could bitterly insult them directly to their face instead of having to do it through me.

 

[Lagboltz]

Of course it isn't up to you to prove...it is up to you to believe. And if it has already been proven, then perhaps you can provide the observed, measured example that I have been asking for.

Stefan's law was observed and measured by the sources in the 1800's that I quoted. Radiation was measured to radiate everywhere. They showed radiation power transferring in all directions without regard to hot and colder objects with a power only dependent on the object's temperature to the forth power. I did prove it I will do it again in language you should understand. Stefan's law came from observed, measured data, not from hypothesis.

Stefan's law for Ps = power radiated from a source S at temperature T in kelvins from area A:

Stefan's law for Pc = power radiated from the surroundings at temperature Tc in kelvins.

The net power P radiated from the radiator is the difference of the radiated power Ps minus the absorbed power Pc.

Notice that factoring out the constants shows it's identical to the equation you gave.

Radiation is a one way street. I asked you to show the backradiation in the SB equation
...
Again, you claim empirical evidence. Emprical means that it has been observed. OK. Show me an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object.

The net power P is a difference between emitted and absorbed powers as you see in the formula above. That is the proof you have been whining about, that radiative energy can flow both ways between a hotter and colder object. You yourself posted that form of the equation. If you don't believe your own equation which shows the proof of an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object, then all hope is lost for you understanding any science at all.

Don't you think that if the things you claim have been observed and measured had actually been observed and measured that the internet would be choked with them?

No because Stefans and the observed, measured experiments of the 1800's didn't have an internet back then.

Stefans and the observed, measured experiments of the 1800's agree with modern physics, "Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, ... 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"'

You wallow in the dark ages when you reject modern science, yet you want to discuss modern science. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Texas_tea]

National Science Foundation funded climate change musical to tune of $700,000

This is tax-payer money going to fund these liberal lies and propaganda. When will this insanity stop?

 

[palerider]

Stefan's law was observed and measured by the sources in the 1800's that I quoted. Radiation was measured to radiate everywhere. They showed radiation power transferring in all directions without regard to hot and colder objects with a power only dependent on the object's temperature to the forth power. I did prove it I will do it again in language you should understand. Stefan's law came from observed, measured data, not from hypothesis.

Actually, they didn't....but it is interesting that you believe it did. Had they found that energy radiated from cool objects to warm objects, the SB equation would look different (showing back radiation) and the second law of thermodynamics would have changed.

As to the rest, it is irrelevant. I would like to thank you for so zealously proving my point....that being, that science is in its infancy and the things you think you know....you don't. You have helped me prove beyond any reasonable doubt that today, 14 years into the 21'st century....science remains unsure as to what heat is. We both provided perfectly credible sources saying that heat is and is not a thing...that heat does and does not flow....that heat is and is not a type of energy.

Heat. The basis for the whole science of thermodynamics. Heat, the topic that must be perfectly understood before one can rationally expound on what energy is and is not doing. You can go on all day and night till the cows come home about what you think you know, but as you helped me so robustly prove, you are not much more than an arrogant, condescending asshole who, at this point doesn't even know what you don't know and have obviously not taken any time at all to consider it.

Rant about QM till your heart's content...tell me, or anyone who is interested enough to listen that it is settled science and all forms of things are "known" like photons, and net energy exchanges, and any of the other hypothetical, theoretical particles and processes that you believe are fact.....but the bottom line is that here in the 21's century, science remains unsure as to what heat is and if that is not understood, then the rest is entirely up in the air....because the rest depends entirely on what one "thinks" heat is.

wallow in the dark ages when you reject modern science, yet you want to discuss modern science. You can't have it both ways.

No, I am afraid that you have clearly demonstrated that it is you who is wallowing around in the faith based "science" of the dark ages. Your faith is strong....you believe....you are not skeptical....which is more than enough evidence that you are not operating from a position of science. Science is skeptical of everything...science knows that it doesn't have all the answers and those that it thinks it has at the present moment are at any time subject to revision or complete collapse. Faith believes....faith doesn't think...it acts as it is told to act....it bows down to those it perceives as high priests and keepers of the secret knowledge.....which is precisely what you are doing.

How many posts did you go on telling me and anyone else who would listen exactly what heat is, and its properties, and what it does, and on and on as if you....you of all people actually knew. Never once taking the opportunity presented to actually come to learn something. Your claim of giving me a "learning moment" some posts back was so ironically funny that I almost gave up the game right then. It wasn't me who had a learning moment...it was you who was smack dab in the middle of one and didn't even know it.

Your faith was, and is so strong that you can only see what you believe in. You couldn't look and see that the sources I was giving you were every bit as scientifically as credible as your own...and that they were saying the exact opposite of what you were saying. All you could see was that anyone or anything that didn't beleive what you believe is heretical and therefore wrong.

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

Had I felt like continuing the game, I was going to bring the following sources forward which state explicitly that heat is not a form of energy:


Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the ... - Page 388
Principles of Physics: A Calculus-Based Text - Volume 1 - Page 171
Materials for Energy Efficiency and Thermal Comfort in Buildings
Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling - Page 29
Foundations of Bioenergetics - Page 27
Entropy for Biologists: An Introduction to Thermodynamics - Page 29
Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics - Page 213
Theoretical Physics: Second Edition - Page 514
Matter and energy - Volume 2 - Page 111
Physics in the Soviet Union: an exposition of theoretical ... - Page 514

And I am sure that true to form, you would have brought some more credible sources stating that heat is a form of energy and would have been willing to play the game ad nauseum having no idea what the "game" really was. I stated early on that science doesn't really know as much as you seem to believe it does. To prove the point, I chose something very basic...heat....surely science knows what heat is...right? As it turns out, science doesn't know what heat is and your faith in science is so strong that you can't even open your eyes to the fact that science does not, in fact, know what heat is. There still exists a vigorous debate over what heat is within science as we have proven beyond any doubt.

Stop being such an asshole and use your brain. If science remains in the dark as to what something so basic as heat is....how can it possibly "know" the things you give it credit for knowing. Stop believing in science as if it were knowledge handed down from the mountain top. You are a product of post modern education....learn that and what it means. You weren't taught critical thinking....you weren't taught that your opponent might be right and that it is possible that even though your opponent might be wrong he could still be proving you wrong...which is exactly what has happened here. I can't say with any real certainty that heat is not a form of energy any more than you can say with any certainty that it is. All those fine, exceedingly credible sources we both provided think they know and apparently are unaware that they don't. One side is right and the other is not but today, 14 years into the 21'st century we don't know which is which and everything that stems from that basic bit of knowledge remains up in the air....which is the whole of thermodynamics and the entirety of QM.

What does this mean to climate change? First, the models are wrong...they have been spectacularly wrong. The physics used to describe the greenhouse effect can't even come close to predicting the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, they can't even predict the temperature of earth without constant tweaking and data adjustments. There has been no warming for going on 20 years now while atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase. Exactly the opposite of the model predictions...in fact, damned near everything we see in the climate today is the opposite of what the models predicted from the growing ice in the Antarctic, to the fact that the Arctic was not ice free in 2013. Fewer hurricanes, fewer tornadoes, less severe drought, heavier snows, and on and on and on.

Observation tells us that climate science got it wrong....but like the question of whether heat is a form of energy or not, your faith tells you that all information that disagrees with you, no matter where it comes from, or how credible it is, must be wrong. Even information readily available to you like observation. You believe the output of computer models over your own eyes....without question.

You are a person of faith....those who lived in the dark ages would applaud your fervor...you believe even when your eyes tell you otherwise. The inquisition would have passed you by without a second glance....you would have been held up as an exemplary example of what the faithful should be, and how they should act. You speak no evil, you hear no evil, and you see no evil. You remain sure in your faith no matter what.

So continue in that state if you like...or open your eyes and start asking questions. Learn some critical thinking skills...and don't be someone's patsy.....and try in the future not to get played as hard as I have just played you. When someone is giving you sources as credible as your own that are saying the opposite of what you believe, take a minute and wonder if what you are arguing about is something you believe, or do you in fact, know...and if you know, are you smarter than the credible sources that are saying the opposite. Do you have some knowledge that they don't? Use your brain every once in a while.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Lagboltz]

Thanks for your summary.

I knew you would not take it too well when I showed that the SB equation you posted would be your own undoing: Radiation exchange depends only on absolute temperatures in the Stefan equation, rather than relative difference in temperature as you mistakenly think. Total, or net energy exchange of course, transfers only one way and depends on the relative difference in temperatures, thus preserving the second law of thermodynamics. That should make you happy, not sad. Cheer up.

You have helped me prove beyond any reasonable doubt that today, 14 years into the 21'st century....science remains unsure as to what heat is.

Excuse me but science is very very sure what heat is. Just because you don't understand science, doesn't mean that scientists don't understand science.

you helped me so robustly prove, you are not much more than an arrogant, condescending asshole ...

Another failure on your part. My rectal sphincter muscle is not condescending. It humbly does its duty under the worst of circumstances.

Your faith was, and is so strong that you can only see what you believe in. Faith believes....faith doesn't think...it acts as it is told to act....it bows down to those it perceives as high priests and keepers of the secret knowledge.....which is precisely what you are doing. ...

Naw, you are describing religion here and not science, because scientists think all the time and bore their friends because of it. And scientist don't keep secrets unless it's company confidential. University scientists continually try to be first to update and publish new findings in thousands of science journals.

On the other hand religion keeps knowledge in sacred static books that seldom change such as the Bible, Koran, or the Kama Sutra, depending on your culture. Scientists, unlike theologians update their positions as new experiments come about. Speaking of updating positions, have you read the Kama Sutra? It discloses a lot of positions. It might be another learning moment for you.

You couldn't look and see that the sources I was giving you were every bit as scientifically as credible as your own...and that they were saying the exact opposite of what you were saying. All you could see was that anyone or anything that didn't beleive what you believe is heretical and therefore wrong. Had I felt like continuing the game, I was going to bring the following sources forward which state explicitly that heat is not a form of energy:

Yeah, lots of your sources said the opposite of my sources and even your own sources contradict your other sources. Is this a source war?! I also googled what you posted, "heat is not a form of energy"and got a lot of hits. So I tried a little internet experiment. Below are phrases that I googled and the number of hits that were found by google. I'm not kidding. Try it.

"heat is not a form of energy". 22,400 hits. (You lose)
"heat is a form of energy" . . 825,000 hits. (I win 37:1)
"poop smells good". . . . . 82,300 hits. (Wins 40:1)
"poop smells bad". . . . . . 2,030 hits. (Loses 1:40)
"poop is heat" 8 hits. (Not significant with a +/- 2.8 uncertainty)
"heat is poop" 4 hits. (Not significant with a +/- 2.0 uncertainty)

What does all this mean? Can we really conclude that "poop smells good"? Can we conclude that the phrase, "poop smells good" is almost 4 times more true than "heat is not a form of energy"? Some people (you know who you are) might think that, but I don't.

I think kids and at least one adult these days think the internet is a substitute for knowledge and wisdom. Type in key words and immediately get the truth no matter the context or lack thereof.

To prove the point, I chose something very basic...heat....surely science knows what heat is...right? As it turns out, science doesn't know what heat is and your faith in science is so strong that you can't even open your eyes to the fact that science does not, in fact, know what heat is. There still exists a vigorous debate over what heat is within science as we have proven beyond any doubt.

There is no vigorous debate. Science is not confused. You are. Science says many things about "heat" which ultimately is just another word that needs definition. "Heat" means different things in different contexts. Any internet reference I have seen spells out the context. But you seldom saw the context and started bitter ranting because of that. Vehemence leads to stress related diseases. You should learn to chill out.

These are the meanings of various phrases that you had trouble with:
Flow of energy is used when hot and cold objects are in contact and the colder one warms up.
Flow of heat is used in the same context as above.
Form of energy is used when referring to the random internal kinetic energy of a substance.
Not a form of energy when heat is considered as method of transfer across a boundary.
Heat is not a substance when comparing it with phlogiston, a theory of the 1700's, or explaining heat to a tot.
Heat cannot spontaneously transfer from cold to hot is a universal law that applies to refrigerators and radiation.
Energy cannot spontaneously transfer from cold to hot only when applied to refrigerators, etc, but not to radiation.

Context clears misunderstanding about the meaning of words. Your problem is that you don't know enough about thermodynamics to understand what the context actually is. You cut and paste sentences almost as a conditioned reflex. You should learn some critical thinking skills and understand the context of what you read, and not just cut and paste phrases out of one context and put them in another.

The inquisition would have passed you by without a second glance....you would have been held up as an exemplary example of what the faithful

A very poor metaphor. As soon as I would say the earth and planets go around the sun, it's off to the gallows for me.

Your arguments in this long thread can be summarized in two sentences:
(1) Lagboltz is a liar, asshole, patsy, fool, has a feeble mind, believes in post modern science fantasy, etc.
(2) Thermodynamics of refrigerators is sacred, but the rest of modern science sucks.

 

[palerider]

Thanks for your summary.

You're welcome although I doubt that you are bright enough to get anything from it. My bet, without even reading is that you are going to go on trying to prove that energy can move from a cool object to a warm object even though it has never been observed.

knew you would not take it too well when I showed that the SB equation you posted would be your own undoing: Radiation exchange depends only on absolute temperatures in the Stefan equation, rather than relative difference in temperature as you mistakenly think. Total, or net energy exchange of course, transfers only one way and depends on the relative difference in temperatures, thus preserving the second law of thermodynamics. That should make you happy, not sad. Cheer up.

Absolute temperature? What is temperature? What is it a measure of? Heat? What is heat? Is it a thing, or is it the evidence of a thing moving from one place to another. Keep on telling yourself that you know something. In fact, you know exactly squat and show no evidence of being intelligent enough to actually learn something.

Let's pretend for a minute that you do know something....and that is a big PRETEND. If the net energy exchange you pretend you know happens, actually happens, then the warm object gets no warmer as a result of the energy you pretend it absorbs from the cooler object. Even though that has never been observed and exists on within the realm of mathematical models, it still leaves the greenhouse effect you so fervently believe in unworkable. According to climate science, the earth absorbs more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun itself and as a result, warms more than it could from incoming solar radiation alone. If your pretend net energy exchange were to happen, the earth would not get any warmer as a result and the hypothetical greenhouse effect still would not work.

me but science is very very sure what heat is. Just because you don't understand science, doesn't mean that scientists don't understand science.

See....like I said, you will continue in your faith and ignore all evidence to the contrary. You posted perfectly credible sources that said that heat flows....I posted perfectly credible sources that said that heat is the result of energy flowing and that heat was not a thing that could flow. When multiple credible scientific sources are at odds over what a thing is, then it is clear that they are not sure what it is. I doubt that you would find many credible sources at odds over how many electrons an oxygen molecule has....we are pretty sure of that number...but today, no matter how you slice it science isn't sure what heat is.

failure on your part. My rectal sphincter muscle is not condescending. It humbly does its duty under the worst of circumstances.

No doubt. As I said, and predicted, your faith is strong. You believe and nothing, not even the strongest evidence that you are wrong can convince you. Even when faced with sources at least, if not more credible than your own, at odds with what you believe heat to be, you can't even consider the fact that your own sources might be wrong. You are truly one of the faithful...and there is no place for skepticism in your religious beliefs.

, you are describing religion here and not science, because scientists think all the time and bore their friends because of it. And scientist don't keep secrets unless it's company confidential. University scientists continually try to be first to update and publish new findings in thousands of science journals.

You are a practitioner of a religion. You can't accept any possibility that you are wrong. I gave you multiple credible sources at odds with your credible sources and you remain blind to the inescapable fact that science today, 14 years into the 21st century remains unresolved as to what heat is....and if science remains unsure about something so basic, then your claim that QM is beyond question is flatly idiotic.

the other hand religion keeps knowledge in sacred static books that seldom change such as the Bible, Koran, or the Kama Sutra, depending on your culture. Scientists, unlike theologians update their positions as new experiments come about. Speaking of updating positions, have you read the Kama Sutra? It discloses a lot of positions. It might be another learning moment for you.

Yeah, that's what science does....but it isn't what you do. You don't take in new information and question what you thought you knew. You flatly reject any information that is at odds with your faith. Again, hard, undeniable evidence that science isn't sure what heat is and you can't bring yourself to admit it....because to admit that science remains unsure about something so basic as heat is to tacitly admit that QM is indeed highly questionable.

, lots of your sources said the opposite of my sources and even your own sources contradict your other sources. Is this a source war?!

No, it isn't a source war. It was a possible learning experience for you and you missed out. You can't bring yourself to question your belief in what heat is because if you do, then what you believe to be your whole knowledge base regarding climate change comes into question. If heat is nothing but the result of energy moving from one place to another, your whole belief system falls apart.

does all this mean? Can we really conclude that "poop smells good"?

You don't need google to make an observation that poop smells good to some creatures. From your point of view, it may be unpleasant, but from a fly's point of view, and some dogs I have known over the years, it must smell quite tasty. And what sort of poop are you talking about? Personally I like the smell of aged manure in a barn....horse or cow...and I am sure that I am not the only man who lives close to the land who would acknowledge in a New York minute, that there are few finer smells than the warm smell of a barn on a very cold winter day.

You operate at a very shallow level which is another hallmark of religious belief. Don't dig to deep....don't pick at those places where contradictions exist. Keep the faith and don't ask questions...and don't accept anything that calls the faith into question.

we conclude that the phrase, "poop smells good" is almost 4 times more true than "heat is not a form of energy"? Some people (you know who you are) might think that, but I don't.

Since I have demonstrated that to many animals, and a large number of people, the smell of poop isn't that unpleasant...I think that you could conclude that poop does indeed smell good. Hell I know a pig farmer who says that that ripe aroma one can sniff drifting from his property smells like money to him. Does money smell good? Again....you are far to shallow to make a connection between your beliefs and science. True science questions everything...you only question that which calls your faith into question...you clearly aren't able to question what you believe...even when presented with overwhelming evidence that what you believe to be true is questionable.

think kids and at least one adult these days think the internet is a substitute for knowledge and wisdom. Type in key words and immediately get the truth no matter the context or lack thereof.

You describe yourself perfectly. You see sources that contradict what you believe and rather than consider that what you believe may not be true...you look for more sources. If you are given even more sources that contradict what you believe...you look for more sources. I guess that you believe if you have more sources then your belief must be true. A single credible source contradicting what you believe to be true should be enough to make you wonder...another credible source contradicting you should make you question what you believe. I am quite sure that you never question what you believe. The evidence is undeniable that science is unsure as to what heat is...you can't bring yourself to believe that as it would call your faith into question.

is no vigorous debate. Science is not confused. You are. Science says many things about "heat" which ultimately is just another word that needs definition. "Heat" means different things in different contexts. Any internet reference I have seen spells out the context. But you seldom saw the context and started bitter ranting because of that. Vehemence leads to stress related diseases. You should learn to chill out.

Does there have to be a vigorous debate in order to recognize that science remains unsure about a thing? Does it take a vigorous debate to make the state of things clear in your mind? When some credible sources say that heat is a form of energy...and some other credible sources say that heat is the result of energy moving from one place to another, then science clearly is unsure of what heat actually is. Tell yourself that it is my fault...and tell yourself that only you understand the "proper" context to make sense of it all. Religious thinking at its most pure. How could a heretic possibly understand the divine knowledge you possess?

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

are the meanings of various phrases that you had trouble with:
Flow of energy is used when hot and cold objects are in contact and the colder one warms up.

Is it a flow of energy or a flow of heat? Tell me what gaia says. Tell me the wisdom from on high.

of heat

is used in the same context as above.

So are you saying that heat is not a thing...but merely a bi product of the movement of energy? Earlier you said that heat was energy....a thing in and of itself. What does your gospel say?....tell us true.

Form of energy

is used when referring to the random internal kinetic energy of a substance.

So is heat a form of energy...or is it not? Tell me oh faithful one? Easy question for one who knows the divine truth.

Not a form of energy

when heat is considered as method of transfer across a boundary.

Again...what is heat? Energy, or the result of energy moving? Is it both? Is it neither? Tell all oh faithful one.

is not a substance

when comparing it with phlogiston, a theory of the 1700's, or explaining heat to a tot.

So heat is not energy? Or is it energy? Speak from your secret knowledge and end the suspense.

Heat cannot spontaneously transfer from cold to hot

is a universal law that applies to refrigerators and radiation.

Only refrigerators and radiation? The greenhouse hypothesis is based on LW radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...making the surface of the earth warmer than it would be from just radiation from the sun. So is heat energy like radiation...or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving between areas of different temperature? What does your faith tell you?

Energy cannot spontaneously transfer from cold to hot

only when applied to refrigerators, etc, but not to radiation.

Energy knows whether it is in a refrigerator or not? How does it know? Can energy transfer from a hot 1.5 volt battery to a cold fully charged 12 volt battery? What sort of energy are we talking about that knows it is in a refrigerator system and won't transfer? Is it radiation? Tell us, what the secret knowledge says.

Context clears misunderstanding about the meaning of words.

Your secret context of course....the context that you have that no one outside the faith has. The context that tells you that heat knows whether or not it is in a refrigerator and whether or not it is heat that's energy or heat that's heat.

problem is that you don't know enough about thermodynamics to understand what the context actually is.

Your problem is that you are a f'ing condescending idiot who doesn't know when he has been played like a fiddle.

(1) Lagboltz is a liar, asshole, patsy, fool, has a feeble mind, believes in post modern science fantasy, etc.

You have that one right.

2) Thermodynamics of refrigerators is sacred, but the rest of modern science sucks.

Are you saying that energy behaves differently in a refrigerator than it does everywhere else in the universe?

You are a clueless buffoon lagboltz. You construct strawmen to argue against when your faith fails you.

 

[Lagboltz]

In your post I counted 13 direct insults and 11 indirect insults. Is that the best you got? Surely you can do better since you seem to think a large number of insults strengthens your physics arguments.

Absolute temperature? What is temperature? What is it a measure of?

The answer to your question is at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_temperature

It is also called thermodynamic temperature. WARNING: That site contains modern physics.

that science today, 14 years into the 21st century remains unresolved as to what heat is

As I said before, science is very very sure what heat is. Just because you don't understand that science, doesn't mean that scientists don't understand the science.

You don't need google to make an observation that poop smells good to some creatures. From your point of view, it may be unpleasant, but from a fly's point of view, and some dogs I have known over the years, it must smell quite tasty. And what sort of poop are you talking about? Personally I like the smell of aged manure in a barn....horse or cow...and I am sure that I am not the only man who lives close to the land who would acknowledge in a New York minute, that there are few finer smells than the warm smell of a barn on a very cold winter day. ...

Since I have demonstrated that to many animals, and a large number of people, the smell of poop isn't that unpleasant...I think that you could conclude that poop does indeed smell good. Hell I know a pig farmer who says that that ripe aroma one can sniff drifting from his property smells like money to him. Does money smell good? Again....you are far to shallow to make a connection between your beliefs and science.

That is way to funny. I posted that as a joke and you took it seriously and posted a whole essay on the smell of poop!!!

Is it a flow of energy or a flow of heat? Tell me what gaia says. Tell me the wisdom from on high.

So are you saying that heat is not a thing...but merely a bi product of the movement of energy? Earlier you said that heat was energy....a thing in and of itself. What does your gospel say?....tell us true.

So is heat a form of energy...or is it not? Tell me oh faithful one? Easy question for one who knows the divine truth.

Again...what is heat? Energy, or the result of energy moving? Is it both? Is it neither? Tell all oh faithful one.

So heat is not energy? Or is it energy? Speak from your secret knowledge and end the suspense.

Only refrigerators and radiation?

You still don't understand context. If you can't handle discovering the context in English sentences, maybe you should look at the thermodynamic formulas involving heat. They are always rigorous. Look at this site:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Here is a hint: Heat is always represented as Q in any thermodynamic equations. WARNING: That site also contains modern physics.

Your secret context of course....the context that you have that no one outside the faith has. The context that tells you that heat knows whether or not it is in a refrigerator and whether or not it is heat that's energy or heat that's heat.

No, no. I didn't make anything up. The context is always at the site. That is where you missed reading the context.

If the net energy exchange you pretend you know happens, actually happens, then the warm object gets no warmer as a result of the energy you pretend it absorbs from the cooler object.

Yes, that is exactly correct. What happens is that the warm object radiates more energy to the cold object than it receives from the cold object. Thus the warmer object cools and the cold object warms. Those English sentences are formalized in the SB equation.

This is what modern science says:
"Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, ... 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"

If you think modern science is fantasy, you must supply a physical concept, or construct, or method, or procedure, or formula or diagram or general idea that you think would inhibit black body radiation from transmitting in all directions allowed by the black body radiation experiments to anything else in the universe.

You have avoided that question. In the past you said the radiation from a cooler body would be canceled by that from a hot body. Do you still believe that?

 

[palerider]

In your post I counted 13 direct insults and 11 indirect insults. Is that the best you got? Surely you can do better since you seem to think a large number of insults strengthens your physics arguments.

The answer to your question is at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_temperature

The question was, what is it a measure of? The energy present in a bit of matter? So again, is heat a thing, or

It is also called thermodynamic temperature. WARNING: That site contains modern physics.

Physics does't bother me....the misuse and misunderstanding of physics as you demonstrate bothers me.

As I said before, science is very very sure what heat is. Just because you don't understand that science, doesn't mean that scientists don't understand the science.

Yeah, I saw were you said it..and yet, your sources said explicitly that heat is a form of energy while mine said explicitly that heat is not a form of energy. So what is it? Energy or the fingerprint of energy? Since various credible scientific sources are not in agreement on that question, then it stands to reason that science is not very sure at all what heat is...you seem to be as a matter of faith, but science is not since credible scientific sources give decidedly different answers. You really need to learn the difference between actual science and faith. You have plenty of faith, but not much grasp of the skeptical nature of science.

is way to funny. I posted that as a joke and you took it seriously and posted a whole essay on the smell of poop!!!

Clearly your joke wasn't...

, that is exactly correct. What happens is that the warm object radiates more energy to the cold object than it receives from the cold object. Thus the warmer object cools and the cold object warms. Those English sentences are formalized in the SB equation.

Note: I said pretend since there is, and never has been an observation of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object.

is what modern science says:
"Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, ... 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"

Which remains theoretical since no actual observation has ever been made of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object.

you think modern science is fantasy, you must supply a physical concept, or construct, or method, or procedure, or formula or diagram or general idea that you think would inhibit black body radiation from transmitting in all directions allowed by the black body radiation experiments to anything else in the universe.

I don't think modern science is fantasy...your belief of what modern science knows for sure and at present is simply offering its best explanation for things it still doesn't know for sure is fantasy. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between what is known, and what is theorized.

have avoided that question. In the past you said the radiation from a cooler body would be canceled by that from a hot body. Do you still believe that?

I said that if radiation were waves, that we know for sure that waves cancel each other out. Otherwise, the only rational explanation is that a cooler object simply doesn't attempt to radiate in the direction of a warmer object. We see that happening all the time...dropped rocks don't attempt to move up....air doesn't attempt to enter a hole in a tire which has greater pressure inside....water won't try to enter a hole in a submerged hose under pressure....what makes you think that a cool object must radiate energy in a direction which it can not go?

 

[Lagboltz]

Howdy pen pal Pale,
You disappoint me. You are really falling behind on personally insulting me. How are going to get people to believe that modern physics is fantasy if you don't use personal insults. I am also disappointed that you didn't include another long essay on the smell of poop.

The question was, what is it a measure of? The energy present in a bit of matter? So again, is heat a thing, or

If you don't understand heat and temperature, don't worry about it. Focus on the topic at hand: thermal radiation of CO2. I gave you some useful references, but the best one for the topic at hand is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation#Radiative_heat_transfer
The equations are simpler and more to the point.

Note: I said pretend since there is, and never has been an observation of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object.

Which remains theoretical since no actual observation has ever been made of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object.

If there was, it was done long ago in the 1800's. References would be hard to come by, so I don't have one for you. You will just have to accept the theory developed by Stefan and later by Einstein, who were very explicit about the exchange radiation.

I don't think modern science is fantasy...

That's not what you said before. You said:
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"

I said that if radiation were waves, that we know for sure that waves cancel each other out.

Not so; you didn't have any "if". In a reference to the radiation between two light bulbs at the same temperature, you stated unequivocally,

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.

You are backtracking a bit on your disdain for post modern science and radiation cancellation. That is nothing to be ashamed of. It shows your ability to move forward.

Otherwise, the only rational explanation is that a cooler object simply doesn't attempt to radiate in the direction of a warmer object.

Well, that isn't really a "rational explanation." You tried that explanation before, and your phrase, "simply doesn't attempt" is a phrase that has no scientific basis. It is the sort of explanation to a little tot, but not at the level that would deny the theory of thermal equlibrium. My request was, "you must supply a physical concept, or construct, or method, or procedure, or formula or diagram or general idea in physics that you think would inhibit black body radiation from transmitting in all directions allowed by the black body radiation experiments to anything else in the universe." The phrase, "simply doesn't attempt" doesn't cut it.

 

[Texas_tea]

Climate Activists Uncaged

Finally, someone has come up with a way to settle the debate over climate change: Put the people on the wrong side of the argument in cages.

A writer for the website Gawker recently penned a self-described “rant” on the pressing need to arrest, charge, and imprison people who “deny” global warming.

This is a great column by Jonah Goldberg that really puts into perspective the communist anti-American wackos behind the Global Warming Hoax!

 

[palerider]

Howdy pen pal Pale,
You disappoint me. You are really falling behind on personally insulting me. How are going to get people to believe that modern physics is fantasy if you don't use personal insults. I am also disappointed that you didn't include another long essay on the smell of poop.

Pointless insulting an idiot.

you don't understand heat and temperature, don't worry about it. Focus on the topic at hand: thermal radiation of CO2. I gave you some useful references, but the best one for the topic at hand is here:

First, no one, including you understands heat...as evidenced by the varying claims of credible sources. Second, wiki is not a useful reference. Perhaps you remain unaware of the amount of fraud, lies, and gatekeeping happening at wiki.

If there was, it was done long ago in the 1800's. References would be hard to come by, so I don't have one for you. You will just have to accept the theory developed by Stefan and later by Einstein, who were very explicit about the exchange radiation.

If it were done, references would be hard to avoid. You don't have one because none exist. Energy moving from a cool object to a warm object has never been observed. Which reminds me....regarding your poor attempt at physics on the SB equation....in physics, a mathematical formula describes a physical event. One can't simply go around applying algebraic properties to equations without first defining the use of the property. The fact that the answer at the end is inconsequential as the formula describes something that is happening in the real world. If one alters the equation, one alters the description of events and again, you can't do that unless you define the use of the property. Applying that property is a statement that you have physically switched the roles of the warmer radiator and the cooler background.

Aside from that, applying an algebraic property to an already elegant equation is just bad math. When you find a defined purpose for applying that property to the SB equation (thus altering what it describes) let me know.
This sort of thing is the reason that I find much of post modern science just plain silly. The idea that because you get the same answer, the equations mean the same thing exhibits a profound misunderstanding of physics.

not what you said before. You said:
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"

And I just demonstrated exactly what I mean. Applying algebraic qualities willy nilly to equations that describe a physical process when the application of the property has not been defined and claiming that they mean the same thing because they end up with the same answer is a fantasy. The SB equation, written as it was by SB means something....it describes a particular physical process...altering the equation alters the physical process it describes and even though the answer is the same, the process has been changed from what is real, to a fantasy process...and why?....to support a half assed, piss poor hypothesis that CO2 is the control knob of the climate.

so; you didn't have any "if". In a reference to the radiation between two light bulbs at the same temperature, you stated unequivocally,

Sorry I didn't draw you a picture with a crayon. Does this mean that I must expound ad nauseum on every topic for you? Speaking of expounding...how about you expound on the definition of the application of an algebraic quality to an already elegant equation...which by the way describes a particular process.

are backtracking a bit on your disdain for post modern science and radiation cancellation. That is nothing to be ashamed of. It shows your ability to move forward.

Your condesention is laughable lagboltz.....you are so far behind the curve that at present, you demonstrably don't know how much you don't know. You have faith in the ignorance of "experts"...and that is all you have.

, that isn't really a "rational explanation."

Of course it is...but then rational isn't your best thing is it? When coupled with the second law which says that energy can't move from a cooler object to a warmer object, what other explanation is there?....some idiotic bullshit regarding two way energy flow which has never once in the history of the universe been observed????...an idiots dream that happens only within the realm of bastardized mathematics?

My request was, "you must supply a physical concept, or construct, or method, or procedure, or formula or diagram or general idea in physics that you think would inhibit black body radiation from transmitting in all directions allowed by the black body radiation experiments to anything else in the universe." The phrase, "simply doesn't attempt" doesn't cut it.

And I gave you the second law which says that energy doesn't move from a cooler object to a warmer object. And then asked you to construct a method, procedure, formula, or diagram to describe why a dropped rock doesn't fall up. You said gravity, but that is all that you can say because we don't really have a handle on gravity. We know it works because of observation, but we don't understand beyond hypothesis why. We know from observation that energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects....the nuts and bolts of how and why that is are still beyond us...just as the nuts and bolts of gravity remain beyond us.

You are promoting faith...not observation...not experience....not anything but hypothesis.....hypothesis based upon an alteration (without definition) of an elegant physical equation.