Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...

Look! A new sound bite! Are you going to use that for everything from now on? You seem to think that is a crippling blow to physics. What you forget is that the science of physics is mathematical models. If you don't believe in physics, then don't talk about it. (Fat chance.)

For your pleasure, here are some more models you should disparage and dismiss:

The "action at a distance" gravitational model of Newton.

The "warped space-time" gravitational model of Einstein.

The Stefan-Boltzmann model of radiation exchange. (Yes, a model. Stefan's experiments only approximated a 4th power exponent. Boltzmann justified the exact math with a model.)

Entropy is a very abstract model of observations and other models.

 

[jc456]

And how it "knows" what the temperature of a distant piece of matter might be.

Just like a rock knows which direction is down. Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.

Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.

Still no sources that agree with your interpretation of the laws of physics? Weird.

still no observed measured evidence to support your sources. hmmmmmm

 

[jc456]

Just like a rock knows which direction is down. .

Yes, we already heard your theory of gravity.

Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.

My gosh. He is actually using the juvenile troll gambit "I know you are so what am I."

and yet, you post crickets hmmmmm

 

[jc456]

Got any measured observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? Measurements of a discrete frequency of energy radiating from a cool object being absorbed by a warmer object? Any at all?

Yes. The cold CMB striking the warm earth.

where is that at?

 

[jc456]

One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...

Look! A new sound bite! Are you going to use that for everything from now on? You seem to think that is a crippling blow to physics. What you forget is that the science of physics is mathematical models. If you don't believe in physics, then don't talk about it. (Fat chance.)

For your pleasure, here are some more models you should disparage and dismiss:

The "action at a distance" gravitational model of Newton.

The "warped space-time" gravitational model of Einstein.

The Stefan-Boltzmann model of radiation exchange. (Yes, a model. Stefan's experiments only approximated a 4th power exponent. Boltzmann justified the exact math with a model.)

Entropy is a very abstract model of observations and other models.

cyclical

 

[jc456]

Some of SSDD's "arguments" sound like Claes Johnson. IMO

I looked up Claes. You are right. SSDD reads his play book. In his blog Claes gives an argument that SSDD has not used yet:

"back radiation" and "forward radiation" are supposed to be independent physical processes as "two-way flow of infrared photons", and at the same time, dependent coupled processes guaranteeing the the 2nd laws is not violated.

But independent processes which are dependent, is a contradiction​

His mistake here is saying that the two radiations must be dependent in order not to violate the 2nd law. They are not dependent. Objects that radiate care diddly squat about the 2nd law. Thus the radiation levels of different objects must not be seen as constrained, i.e. dependent.

It just so happens that the math exactly computes the right amount of emission and absorption, and it's the math that says the 2nd law is never violated. Coincidence? Not by a long shot. Kirchhoff showed the details of the physics that prohibit 2nd law violations of independent radiating objects. That lead to validity of the subtracted form of the SB equation. Stefan's original paper did not immediately promote the subtracted form because Kirchhoff's work came later.

Got any measured observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? Measurements of a discrete frequency of energy radiating from a cool object being absorbed by a warmer object? Any at all?

Didn't think so. What you have is a never ending attempt to validate your model with the model itself, or mental experiments based upon the model. Newsflash...not science...that is faith....belief in the model...not actual evidence.

all they have to do is light a match and put an ice cube near it and show us the temperature of the match goes up. That's all. Doesn't seem that hard to test.

 

[jc456]

still looking for an answer as to why warm pop put in a freezer gets cold?

 

[jc456]

how about this one:

https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopene...m-tea-turns-cold-if-left-out-for-a-while.html
"Short answer: Because heat always travels from an object at a higher temperature to objects at a lower temperature."

also,

"Note that heat never travels in the opposite direction (under normal conditions), i.e. from a cold object to a warm one, unless there is work being done. This is the basic working principle behind refrigerators and heat pumps. In these appliances, electricity does the work that is required to actively reverse the direction of heat transfer."

 

[jc456]

One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...

Look! A new sound bite! Are you going to use that for everything from now on? You seem to think that is a crippling blow to physics. What you forget is that the science of physics is mathematical models. If you don't believe in physics, then don't talk about it. (Fat chance.)

For your pleasure, here are some more models you should disparage and dismiss:

The "action at a distance" gravitational model of Newton.

The "warped space-time" gravitational model of Einstein.

The Stefan-Boltzmann model of radiation exchange. (Yes, a model. Stefan's experiments only approximated a 4th power exponent. Boltzmann justified the exact math with a model.)

Entropy is a very abstract model of observations and other models.

speaking of entropy....
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopene...m-tea-turns-cold-if-left-out-for-a-while.html

"Second Law of Thermodynamics
First, let me tell you what the second law of thermodynamics actually says. It states that the total entropy of an isolated system (a system that does not interact with other systems and therefore remains unaffected by its surroundings) always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal scenarios, where the system is undergoing a reversible process or exists in a stable state.

In simple terms, this means that if a physical process is irreversible, its entropy must increase. An important corollary from that transfer of thermal energy, or in simple terms, transfer of heat energy from/to a body, takes place in such a way that the body and the surroundings reach thermal equilibrium, i.e., a state where there is no difference between their temperatures."

 

[SSDD]

Got anything new? Care to explain why every scientist for the past century would say you were wrong?

Don't need anything new...reality is on my side. Here is how conversation goes with you guys.

You: man made global warming is real...energy moves spontaneously in two directions...every scientist of the past 100 years says so.

Me: Great. Care to show me some of the evidence upon which they based their belief upon?

You: The models, observations, and measurements.

Me: Great. Lets see some of the observations and measurements.

You: Every scientists of the past 100 years says so.

Do you have anything new? Actual observations and measurements supporting your claims would be something new?

 

[SSDD]

You think that output displays of recorded signals show people are fooled by instrumentation? You should realize that the output of every transducer in every measuring instrument does exactly the same thing. Do you distrust other instruments too?

Sorry guy...the receiver received a resonant radio frequency. Go on being fooled...it's in your nature.

 

[SSDD]

You think that output displays of recorded signals show people are fooled by instrumentation? You should realize that the output of every transducer in every measuring instrument does exactly the same thing. Do you distrust other instruments too?

Sorry guy...the receiver received a resonant radio frequency. Go on being fooled...it's in your nature.

Don't you find it odd that this is the only instance you can manage to come up with? Don't you think that if energy really moved from cool to warm that the observations and measurements would be legion? Every instance you manage to name is just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation. Note that the people who actually made the discovery didn't claim that this is an instance of energy moving from cold to warm...that is merely your terribly misinformed interpretation.

 

[SSDD]

Got any measured observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? Measurements of a discrete frequency of energy radiating from a cool object being absorbed by a warmer object? Any at all?

Yes. The cold CMB striking the warm earth.

Sorry guy...wrong again.

 

[SSDD]

One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...

Look! A new sound bite! Are you going to use that for everything from now on? You seem to think that is a crippling blow to physics. What you forget is that the science of physics is mathematical models. If you don't believe in physics, then don't talk about it. (Fat chance.)
.

This is how conversations with you wack jobs go..

You: man made global warming is real...energy moves spontaneously in two directions...pick whatever unobserved, unmeasured, untested claim you guys like to make....every scientist of the past 100 years says so.

Me: Great. Care to show me some of the evidence upon which they based their belief upon?

You: The models, observations, and measurements.

Me: Great. Lets see some of the observations and measurements.

You: Every scientists of the past 100 years says so.

 

[SSDD]

One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...

Look! A new sound bite! Are you going to use that for everything from now on? You seem to think that is a crippling blow to physics. What you forget is that the science of physics is mathematical models. If you don't believe in physics, then don't talk about it. (Fat chance.)

For your pleasure, here are some more models you should disparage and dismiss:

The "action at a distance" gravitational model of Newton.

The "warped space-time" gravitational model of Einstein.

The Stefan-Boltzmann model of radiation exchange. (Yes, a model. Stefan's experiments only approximated a 4th power exponent. Boltzmann justified the exact math with a model.)

Entropy is a very abstract model of observations and other models.

Got any actual observation or measurement to support the claim or are you once again going to try to validate the model with the model and then tell me who else believes it?

My bet is......a resounding no..you do not have any observation or measurement.

 

[SSDD]

And how it "knows" what the temperature of a distant piece of matter might be.

Just like a rock knows which direction is down. Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.

Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.

Still no sources that agree with your interpretation of the laws of physics? Weird.

still no observed measured evidence to support your sources. hmmmmmm

And he never will.

 

[Crick]

You think that output displays of recorded signals show people are fooled by instrumentation? You should realize that the output of every transducer in every measuring instrument does exactly the same thing. Do you distrust other instruments too?

Sorry guy...the receiver received a resonant radio frequency. Go on being fooled...it's in your nature.

And you contend the resonance in every receiver is identical? You ARE the physics master.

 

[Wuwei]

Do you have anything new? Actual observations and measurements supporting your claims would be something new?

Do you have anything new?
Do you have any actual observation or measurements that say atomic physics is violated? Anything besides saying you don't believe in science, or anything besides saying you don't believe actual observation or measurements of science?

 

[Sunsettommy]

This thread has worn itself out.

Anything new indeed, what hasn't been argued over yet?

On and on it goes to the point boring and Zzzzz......................

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This thread has worn itself out.

Anything new indeed, what hasn't been argued over yet?

On and on it goes to the point boring and Zzzzz......................

SSDD's confusion is boring.