Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Radiation is created, must be created, by a physical process related to internal conditions and the available energy that can be converted to radiation. Energy is shed by the radiation produced and the object cools.
Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects? It is hard to pin him down because he always digresses, or buries it in cursing, or says that science doesn't understand QM, etc.Apparently that doesn't matter to him. He just handwaves that away like he does with so many criticisms and contradictions that arise from his bizarre theories.
Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects?
Because the S-B equation. And the 2nd Law.
It was the inevitable outgrowth of his claim that there is no back radiation.
I understand that, but I was referring to deeper concepts. Has he said why sunlight can get past the hotter corona? or why atomic vibrations do not emit EM waves toward a hotter object? His explanation on the CMB was a totally trollish fantasy.
He goes bonkers when you mention smart photons, but has no deeper concept. Then he also seemingly says the opposite and tacitly acknowledges dual emission but says that the photons cancel, which as we know is not possible.
You don't seem to grasp that observed, and measured phenomena is science. Belief in the unseen and unknowable is faith.
Science is now about mathematical modeling of the observed phenomena. Mathematical models have predicted things that were unknown and lead to new observations and measurements for verification.
Everyone knows that QM evades intuition. Everyone knows that the real importance of QM is that it can mathematically produce results that model all experiments of electromagnitism.It is for you.So QM is now a mystery...it gets more religious all the time...
It is for science as well...it is 100 years on since Copenhagen and there is still not an agreement on what the Copenhagen interpretation even means...that is, by definition, a mystery.
One way energy flow seriously violates several laws of physics and QM. But you are ignorant of QM so my argument is moot to you.Can't bring yourself to admit to reality...the answer is no...you can not show any actual measured evidence of two way energy flow...is that so difficult?
I understand the mathematics of QM. That's all that's necessary to understand thermodynamics. The Copenhagen school nor any other intuitive picture does not enlighten thermodynamics. You are running yourself in circles confusing the philosophy with math.And you believe that you do?
They are talking about the intuitive picture. I already told you that. Weinburg supports what I said:“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Dr Richard Feynman
My own conclusion is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws. This view is not universally shared. Indeed, many physicists are satisfied with their own interpretation of quantum mechanics. But different physicists are satisfied with different interpretations. In my view, we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is only a good approximation. Steven Weinberg,
Displaying your ignorance again.Science does not know what work is moving energy from the surface to the corona..but they know that it isn't a spontaneous movement of energy from the cooler surface to the corona...and as to CMB...it isn' my fault that you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to, but is neither CMB, nor IR.
The observations, measurements, and experiments, have lead to mathematical models. Physics has two major disciplines: Theoretical and experimental. All you have done is focus on the experimental aspect but with disdain the theoretical aspect. Believe me both are equally important in order to have developed the computer you are now playing with.Funny, when you look up the word science..even in the science dictionary, it is still defined as observation, measurement, and experiment....your belief that models are reality is something....but not science. refer to the word that describes belief in a thing without proof.
Radiation is created, must be created, by a physical process related to internal conditions and the available energy that can be converted to radiation. Energy is shed by the radiation produced and the object cools.
No ian....radiation is not created...radiation is energy and we all know...or should know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed..
If you are starting with the assumption that some energy is created, then everything that follows is as wrong as the initial assumption.
The observations, measurements, and experiments, have lead to mathematical models. Physics has two major disciplines: Theoretical and experimental. All you have done is focus on the experimental aspect but with disdain the theoretical aspect. Believe me both are equally important in order to have developed the computer you are now playing with.Funny, when you look up the word science..even in the science dictionary, it is still defined as observation, measurement, and experiment....your belief that models are reality is something....but not science. refer to the word that describes belief in a thing without proof.
My own conclusion is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws. This view is not universally shared. Indeed, many physicists are satisfied with their own interpretation of quantum mechanics. But different physicists are satisfied with different interpretations. In my view, we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is only a good approximation. Steven Weinberg,
My position is that energy movement is a one way, gross movement, because that is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says....it states quite clearly that energy can only move spontaneously from a state of more order to a state of less order...two way energy movement would have energy moving spontaneously from a state of less order to a state of more order..
Yes, another thing he is naive about is to focus only on laws. Laws are generally direct mathematical codification of experiments. Theory generally focuses on deeper relationships between the laws and creates a sort of symbiosis of a deeper theory with the laws. For example many of the laws of thermodynamics were discovered before the fact that matter was proved to be composed of particles, such as atoms, nuclei or photons. SSDD's idea of physics predates all that.Actually SSDD is adamant that the first, naive and immature, theories from 150 years ago are the only correct ones. Even though it was already known at the time that they were insufficient to explain the experimental data.
Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects?
Because the S-B equation. And the 2nd Law.
It was the inevitable outgrowth of his claim that there is no back radiation.
I understand that, but I was referring to deeper concepts. Has he said why sunlight can get past the hotter corona? or why atomic vibrations do not emit EM waves toward a hotter object? His explanation on the CMB was a totally trollish fantasy.
He goes bonkers when you mention smart photons, but has no deeper concept. Then he also seemingly says the opposite and tacitly acknowledges dual emission but says that the photons cancel, which as we know is not possible.
Science does not know what work is moving energy from the surface to the corona..but they know that it isn't a spontaneous movement of energy from the cooler surface to the corona...and as to CMB...it isn' my fault that you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to, but is neither CMB, nor IR.
Those words in that silly phrase say nothing. If I understand his bizarre thinking, we can't measure heat with a thermistor, because that is just a change in resistance, it's not heat. We can't measure light levels with a photo detector because it just gives a voltage, and a voltage is not light.... etc.you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to,
Your resonant invention is silly.
Those words in that silly phrase say nothing. If I understand his bizarre thinking, we can't measure heat with a thermistor, because that is just a change in resistance, it's not heat. We can't measure light levels with a photo detector because it just gives a voltage, and a voltage is not light.... etc.you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to,
Your resonant invention is silly.
One way energy flow seriously violates several laws of physics and QM. But you are ignorant of QM so my argument is moot to you.Can't bring yourself to admit to reality...the answer is no...you can not show any actual measured evidence of two way energy flow...is that so difficult?
Displaying your ignorance again.Science does not know what work is moving energy from the surface to the corona..but they know that it isn't a spontaneous movement of energy from the cooler surface to the corona...and as to CMB...it isn' my fault that you can't grasp the difference between IR which is what CMB is and a resonant radio frequency which correlates to, but is neither CMB, nor IR.
The observations, measurements, and experiments, have lead to mathematical models. Physics has two major disciplines: Theoretical and experimental. All you have done is focus on the experimental aspect but with disdain the theoretical aspect. Believe me both are equally important in order to have developed the computer you are now playing with.Funny, when you look up the word science..even in the science dictionary, it is still defined as observation, measurement, and experiment....your belief that models are reality is something....but not science. refer to the word that describes belief in a thing without proof.
