Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reading it doesn't help your claim.

I claimed nothing

You never claimed the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann?

You never claimed that irreversible means Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong about emissions?

That's a relief.​

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Why do you feel that conficts at all with Stefan-Boltzmann?

Never said it did

Great. All those posts, and you never disagreed with anything I said.

 

[jc456]

I claimed nothing

You never claimed the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann?

You never claimed that irreversible means Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong about emissions?

That's a relief.​

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Why do you feel that conficts at all with Stefan-Boltzmann?

Never said it did

Great. All those posts, and you never disagreed with anything I said.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that. Irreversible. Says it right in the explanation. Again, your free to post an observed incident that shows a cold object radiating at a warm object. i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted. So feel free to post it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You never claimed the 2nd Law conflicts with Stefan-Boltzmann?

You never claimed that irreversible means Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong about emissions?

That's a relief.​

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Why do you feel that conficts at all with Stefan-Boltzmann?

Never said it did

Great. All those posts, and you never disagreed with anything I said.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that. Irreversible. Says it right in the explanation. Again, your free to post an observed incident that shows a cold object radiating at a warm object. i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted. So feel free to post it.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted.

Yes, your ignorance is well documented.

 

[jc456]

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Why do you feel that conficts at all with Stefan-Boltzmann?

Never said it did

Great. All those posts, and you never disagreed with anything I said.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that. Irreversible. Says it right in the explanation. Again, your free to post an observed incident that shows a cold object radiating at a warm object. i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted. So feel free to post it.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted.

Yes, your ignorance is well documented.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided. as I said, I'm still waiting on your observed evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not at all, the 2nd law says energy flow is to cold and irreversible!

Why do you feel that conficts at all with Stefan-Boltzmann?

Never said it did

Great. All those posts, and you never disagreed with anything I said.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that. Irreversible. Says it right in the explanation. Again, your free to post an observed incident that shows a cold object radiating at a warm object. i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted. So feel free to post it.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted.

Yes, your ignorance is well documented.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided. as I said, I'm still waiting on your observed evidence.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided.

Which version said irreversible means SB is wrong?

 

[jc456]

Never said it did

Great. All those posts, and you never disagreed with anything I said.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that. Irreversible. Says it right in the explanation. Again, your free to post an observed incident that shows a cold object radiating at a warm object. i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted. So feel free to post it.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted.

Yes, your ignorance is well documented.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided. as I said, I'm still waiting on your observed evidence.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided.

Which version said irreversible means SB is wrong?

I'm still waiting on the observed evidence, you keep deflecting away from the ask. shit dude, we're like hundreds of posts with this. just post your observed evidence, I ain't going anywhere else but there. IRREVERSIBLE!!!! hahahahaahahaha

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Great. All those posts, and you never disagreed with anything I said.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that. Irreversible. Says it right in the explanation. Again, your free to post an observed incident that shows a cold object radiating at a warm object. i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted. So feel free to post it.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted.

Yes, your ignorance is well documented.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided. as I said, I'm still waiting on your observed evidence.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided.

Which version said irreversible means SB is wrong?

I'm still waiting on the observed evidence, you keep deflecting away from the ask. shit dude, we're like hundreds of posts with this. just post your observed evidence, I ain't going anywhere else but there. IRREVERSIBLE!!!! hahahahaahahaha

You still haven't shown that irreversible means anything to Stefan-Boltzmann. Weird.

 

[jc456]

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that. Irreversible. Says it right in the explanation. Again, your free to post an observed incident that shows a cold object radiating at a warm object. i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted. So feel free to post it.

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted.

Yes, your ignorance is well documented.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided. as I said, I'm still waiting on your observed evidence.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided.

Which version said irreversible means SB is wrong?

I'm still waiting on the observed evidence, you keep deflecting away from the ask. shit dude, we're like hundreds of posts with this. just post your observed evidence, I ain't going anywhere else but there. IRREVERSIBLE!!!! hahahahaahahaha

You still haven't shown that irreversible means anything to Stefan-Boltzmann. Weird.

its' the 2nd law and it is included in there. now show the observed cold object radiating to the warm object. I'll wait for your post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

sure I did. Cold objects do not radiate at warm objects and the 2nd law states that.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

i have checked the internet for years now, and nope, not one observation has been posted.

Yes, your ignorance is well documented.

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided. as I said, I'm still waiting on your observed evidence.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided.

Which version said irreversible means SB is wrong?

I'm still waiting on the observed evidence, you keep deflecting away from the ask. shit dude, we're like hundreds of posts with this. just post your observed evidence, I ain't going anywhere else but there. IRREVERSIBLE!!!! hahahahaahahaha

You still haven't shown that irreversible means anything to Stefan-Boltzmann. Weird.

its' the 2nd law and it is included in there. now show the observed cold object radiating to the warm object. I'll wait for your post.

Repeating your confused fantasy doesn't make it true.

 

[jc456]

You'll have to post the version of the 2nd Law you're referring to, the one that says cold objects can't radiate at warmer objects and the one that mentions "irreversible radiating", whatever that means. The one that says SB (total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature) is wrong.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided. as I said, I'm still waiting on your observed evidence.

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided.

Which version said irreversible means SB is wrong?

I'm still waiting on the observed evidence, you keep deflecting away from the ask. shit dude, we're like hundreds of posts with this. just post your observed evidence, I ain't going anywhere else but there. IRREVERSIBLE!!!! hahahahaahahaha

You still haven't shown that irreversible means anything to Stefan-Boltzmann. Weird.

its' the 2nd law and it is included in there. now show the observed cold object radiating to the warm object. I'll wait for your post.

Repeating your confused fantasy doesn't make it true.

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects. go for it any day.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I did, irreversible. that definition that you provided.

Which version said irreversible means SB is wrong?

I'm still waiting on the observed evidence, you keep deflecting away from the ask. shit dude, we're like hundreds of posts with this. just post your observed evidence, I ain't going anywhere else but there. IRREVERSIBLE!!!! hahahahaahahaha

You still haven't shown that irreversible means anything to Stefan-Boltzmann. Weird.

its' the 2nd law and it is included in there. now show the observed cold object radiating to the warm object. I'll wait for your post.

Repeating your confused fantasy doesn't make it true.

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects. go for it any day.

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects

Link to me ever claiming that.......

In the meantime.....

If you have any evidence that refutes the Stefan-Boltzmann law, I'd love to see it.

 

[jc456]

I'm still waiting on the observed evidence, you keep deflecting away from the ask. shit dude, we're like hundreds of posts with this. just post your observed evidence, I ain't going anywhere else but there. IRREVERSIBLE!!!! hahahahaahahaha

You still haven't shown that irreversible means anything to Stefan-Boltzmann. Weird.

its' the 2nd law and it is included in there. now show the observed cold object radiating to the warm object. I'll wait for your post.

Repeating your confused fantasy doesn't make it true.

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects. go for it any day.

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects

Link to me ever claiming that.......

In the meantime.....

View attachment 272409

If you have any evidence that refutes the Stefan-Boltzmann law, I'd love to see it.

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it. I got it. so, you can't prove the action of the cold object radiating. I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer. funny, you don't dispute it either. and yet you say the cold object will radiate. radiation is heat,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You still haven't shown that irreversible means anything to Stefan-Boltzmann. Weird.

its' the 2nd law and it is included in there. now show the observed cold object radiating to the warm object. I'll wait for your post.

Repeating your confused fantasy doesn't make it true.

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects. go for it any day.

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects

Link to me ever claiming that.......

In the meantime.....

View attachment 272409

If you have any evidence that refutes the Stefan-Boltzmann law, I'd love to see it.

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it. I got it. so, you can't prove the action of the cold object radiating. I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer. funny, you don't dispute it either. and yet you say the cold object will radiate. radiation is heat,

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it.

Still waiting for you to refute Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer.

Congrats on your short visit to reality.

funny, you don't dispute it either.

Why would I dispute reality? Reality is, as quantified in SB, warmer objects radiate more/faster than cooler objects. The net flow of energy in your moronic example is from the warm spoon to the cool ice.

and yet you say the cold object will radiate.

What can I say, I agree with Stefan-Boltzmann.

 

[jc456]

its' the 2nd law and it is included in there. now show the observed cold object radiating to the warm object. I'll wait for your post.

Repeating your confused fantasy doesn't make it true.

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects. go for it any day.

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects

Link to me ever claiming that.......

In the meantime.....

View attachment 272409

If you have any evidence that refutes the Stefan-Boltzmann law, I'd love to see it.

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it. I got it. so, you can't prove the action of the cold object radiating. I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer. funny, you don't dispute it either. and yet you say the cold object will radiate. radiation is heat,

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it.

Still waiting for you to refute Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer.

Congrats on your short visit to reality.

funny, you don't dispute it either.

Why would I dispute reality? Reality is, as quantified in SB, warmer objects radiate more/faster than cooler objects. The net flow of energy in your moronic example is from the warm spoon to the cool ice.

and yet you say the cold object will radiate.

View attachment 272419

What can I say, I agree with Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

sure! send it to me.

 

[jc456]

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects. go for it any day.

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects

Link to me ever claiming that.......

In the meantime.....

View attachment 272409

If you have any evidence that refutes the Stefan-Boltzmann law, I'd love to see it.

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it. I got it. so, you can't prove the action of the cold object radiating. I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer. funny, you don't dispute it either. and yet you say the cold object will radiate. radiation is heat,

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it.

Still waiting for you to refute Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer.

Congrats on your short visit to reality.

funny, you don't dispute it either.

Why would I dispute reality? Reality is, as quantified in SB, warmer objects radiate more/faster than cooler objects. The net flow of energy in your moronic example is from the warm spoon to the cool ice.

and yet you say the cold object will radiate.

View attachment 272419

What can I say, I agree with Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

sure! send it to me.

[email protected]

Be sure to tell him about your ice cube experiment!!

why wouldn't I?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it's true until you disprove it with observed empirical data of cold objects heating warm objects

Link to me ever claiming that.......

In the meantime.....

View attachment 272409

If you have any evidence that refutes the Stefan-Boltzmann law, I'd love to see it.

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it. I got it. so, you can't prove the action of the cold object radiating. I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer. funny, you don't dispute it either. and yet you say the cold object will radiate. radiation is heat,

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it.

Still waiting for you to refute Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer.

Congrats on your short visit to reality.

funny, you don't dispute it either.

Why would I dispute reality? Reality is, as quantified in SB, warmer objects radiate more/faster than cooler objects. The net flow of energy in your moronic example is from the warm spoon to the cool ice.

and yet you say the cold object will radiate.

View attachment 272419

What can I say, I agree with Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

sure! send it to me.

[email protected]

Be sure to tell him about your ice cube experiment!!

why wouldn't I?

Make sure you post his response.

 

[jc456]

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it. I got it. so, you can't prove the action of the cold object radiating. I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer. funny, you don't dispute it either. and yet you say the cold object will radiate. radiation is heat,

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it.

Still waiting for you to refute Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer.

Congrats on your short visit to reality.

funny, you don't dispute it either.

Why would I dispute reality? Reality is, as quantified in SB, warmer objects radiate more/faster than cooler objects. The net flow of energy in your moronic example is from the warm spoon to the cool ice.

and yet you say the cold object will radiate.

View attachment 272419

What can I say, I agree with Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

sure! send it to me.

[email protected]

Be sure to tell him about your ice cube experiment!!

why wouldn't I?

Make sure you post his response.

I will, I'll be the first one to pound my chest, LOL. you think I think that email address is good. hahahahahahaha, the thing is, you still have zippolla!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm looking for the experiment that shows that cold objects radiate to a warm one. It's now obvious you don't have any. you have SB and that's it.

Still waiting for you to refute Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

I can say with certainty that an ice cube next to a warm object will not make the warm object warmer.

Congrats on your short visit to reality.

funny, you don't dispute it either.

Why would I dispute reality? Reality is, as quantified in SB, warmer objects radiate more/faster than cooler objects. The net flow of energy in your moronic example is from the warm spoon to the cool ice.

and yet you say the cold object will radiate.

View attachment 272419

What can I say, I agree with Stefan-Boltzmann.

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

sure! send it to me.

[email protected]

Be sure to tell him about your ice cube experiment!!

why wouldn't I?

Make sure you post his response.

I will, I'll be the first one to pound my chest, LOL. you think I think that email address is good. hahahahahahaha, the thing is, you still have zippolla!!!

I will, I'll be the first one to pound my chest,

I wonder if he'll laugh at you more than he laughed at SSDD?

you think I think that email address is good.

Nah, you don't think.

Joachim Raeder

 

[jc456]

Would you like Dr. Raeder's email?

sure! send it to me.

[email protected]

Be sure to tell him about your ice cube experiment!!

why wouldn't I?

Make sure you post his response.

I will, I'll be the first one to pound my chest, LOL. you think I think that email address is good. hahahahahahaha, the thing is, you still have zippolla!!!

I will, I'll be the first one to pound my chest,

I wonder if he'll laugh at you more than he laughed at SSDD?

you think I think that email address is good.

Nah, you don't think.
View attachment 272436

Joachim Raeder

I wonder if he'll laugh at you more than he laughed at SSDD

Let’s see it, or are you a liar?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[email protected]

Be sure to tell him about your ice cube experiment!!

why wouldn't I?

Make sure you post his response.

I will, I'll be the first one to pound my chest, LOL. you think I think that email address is good. hahahahahahaha, the thing is, you still have zippolla!!!

I will, I'll be the first one to pound my chest,

I wonder if he'll laugh at you more than he laughed at SSDD?

you think I think that email address is good.

Nah, you don't think.
View attachment 272436

Joachim Raeder

I wonder if he'll laugh at you more than he laughed at SSDD

Let’s see it, or are you a liar?

Still waiting for you to refute Stefan-Boltzmann.