Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have given you many examples of radiation being measured with ambient temperature instruments.

No..you have given examples of the temperature change of an internal thermopile being measured by instruments at ambient temperature...none of those is even remotely capable of measuring a discrete frequency of radiation...they simply measure temperature change within the instrument.

You then say we are being fooled instrumentation. But you also say the measurements are accurate.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...you are assigning it a capability that it does not have...it does what it does very accurately but it does not do what you claim it to be doing.

When you believe that an instrument which is actually measuring (very accurately) the temperature changes within an internal thermopile is actually measuring radiation, then you are being fooled by the instrument...

Explain again how we were fooled by radio telescope evidence of cosmic background radiation.

because it was receiving radio signals, and not IR radiation...it has all been explained to you but apparently even the most basic explanation is so far over your head that you still believe it was measuring IR.

because it was receiving radio signals, and not IR radiation...

Photons with less energy than IR are allowed to move from cold to warm?

Radio waves don't recognize cold and warm...but no one would expect you to know something so basic.

Radio waves don't recognize cold and warm

Why are radio waves allowed to violate the 2nd Law but IR waves cannot?
Any other waves that can move from cold to warm? Is there a list?

 

[SSDD]

No scientist recognizes a crisis in thermodynamics of radiation exchange.

You just keep talking and revealing just how uninformed you actually are...pretty soon you will be letting us know that you didn't graduate from high school.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/philos/kohut2.pdf

clip: Contemporary physics has difficulty understanding the relation between continuity and discontinuity (discreetness) of matter. The gravitational or electromagnetic fields are described as continua. But on the other hand, they are represented by the discrete quanta of electromagnetic energy – photons and gravitational energy – gravitons. The relations between discrete particles and their continual fields are not clearly explained. This duality is only accepted as a paradox of nature.

The clearest example is electromagnetic radiation which is both a wave of the electromagnetic field and a particle (corpuscle) – photon, an elementary quantum of energy. This duality of wave and particle is explained as a manifestation of complementary principle without deeper penetration into this concept.

... For example, the electromagnetic field is transmitted by the quanta of radiation – photons. How could the elementary point particles be a carrier of a continual field


....The basic questions of physics are: What is the basic building block of matter and all its forms of existence like space, time, solid, radiation, vacuum, force fields? What is the essence of gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak interaction? What form of nature is expressed by the basic cosmological constants? Contemporary physics does not know the answer to these
questions and the theory of strings will never find them. This fact is demonstrated by the presence of multitudes of physical theories. Some of them are far from reality and use absurd hypotheses on a par with the science-fiction.


Search the phrase "crisis in physics" and you get something like 17 million hits...this might only come as a surprise to a blind follower who has lost all critical thinking skills.

The LHC is about as empirical as you can get.

And they have not demonstrated two way net energy flow.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..

Photons always travel at the speed of light. A particle travelling at 99.99% of the speed of light (relative to us) interacts with light exactly the same way as any other similar particle.

Do they? An unproven assumption.

The speed was not what I was showing you. It was contained energy. If a particle is cooler and collides with a warmer particle the whole must then readjust to accommodate the cooler mass, resulting in cooling. Just as a slower car hitting another will slow the faster one and not speed it up.

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

I thought covailent bonds repel photons........

At what frequency are they vibrating?

You all seam to miss basic points about matter and how it might affect EME..

 

[Wuwei]

No scientist recognizes a crisis in thermodynamics of radiation exchange.

You just keep talking and revealing just how uninformed you actually are...pretty soon you will be letting us know that you didn't graduate from high school.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/philos/kohut2.pdf

clip: Contemporary physics has difficulty understanding the relation between continuity and discontinuity (discreetness) of matter. The gravitational or electromagnetic fields are described as continua. But on the other hand, they are represented by the discrete quanta of electromagnetic energy – photons and gravitational energy – gravitons. The relations between discrete particles and their continual fields are not clearly explained. This duality is only accepted as a paradox of nature.

The clearest example is electromagnetic radiation which is both a wave of the electromagnetic field and a particle (corpuscle) – photon, an elementary quantum of energy. This duality of wave and particle is explained as a manifestation of complementary principle without deeper penetration into this concept.

... For example, the electromagnetic field is transmitted by the quanta of radiation – photons. How could the elementary point particles be a carrier of a continual field


....The basic questions of physics are: What is the basic building block of matter and all its forms of existence like space, time, solid, radiation, vacuum, force fields? What is the essence of gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak interaction? What form of nature is expressed by the basic cosmological constants? Contemporary physics does not know the answer to these
questions and the theory of strings will never find them. This fact is demonstrated by the presence of multitudes of physical theories. Some of them are far from reality and use absurd hypotheses on a par with the science-fiction.


Search the phrase "crisis in physics" and you get something like 17 million hits...this might only come as a surprise to a blind follower who has lost all critical thinking skills.

The LHC is about as empirical as you can get.

And they have not demonstrated two way net energy flow.

Your quote has confused you.
I repeat: No scientist recognizes a crisis in thermodynamics of radiation exchange.
I repeat: The thermodynamics of the 2nd law is consistent with radiation exchange.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..

Photons always travel at the speed of light. A particle travelling at 99.99% of the speed of light (relative to us) interacts with light exactly the same way as any other similar particle.

Do they? An unproven assumption.

The speed was not what I was showing you. It was contained energy. If a particle is cooler and collides with a warmer particle the whole must then readjust to accommodate the cooler mass, resulting in cooling.

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

I thought covailent bonds repel photons........

At what frequency are they vibrating?

You all seam to miss basic points about matter and how it might affect EME..

At what frequency are they vibrating?

Does that determine whether the covailent bonds can repel them?

 

[SSDD]

Your quote has confused you.
I repeat: No scientist recognizes a crisis in thermodynamics of radiation exchange.
I repeat: The thermodynamics of the 2nd law is consistent with radiation exchange.

.

You really have it bad...blind faith. The fact is that today..right here in the 21st century, science knows next to nothing about the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange...and here you are claiming that they know all about energy exchange and that because the 2nd law says that energy can not spontaneously move from cool to warm, you believe that is consistent with two way radiation exchange.

And repeating a falsehood any number of times will never make it true. Observation and measurement make it true...or at least feasible...two things you don't have in support of your beliefs.

I am curious...do you believe photons are real or are you able to admit that they are merely theoretical particles...stories we tell in an attempt to fill in blank spaces in our knowledge till such time as we can fill them in with observed, measured, quantified fact?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..

Photons always travel at the speed of light. A particle travelling at 99.99% of the speed of light (relative to us) interacts with light exactly the same way as any other similar particle.

Do they? An unproven assumption.

The speed was not what I was showing you. It was contained energy. If a particle is cooler and collides with a warmer particle the whole must then readjust to accommodate the cooler mass, resulting in cooling.

Sorry guy, but it isn't...but do feel free to show me an observed measured example of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

Of course, no such measurement will be forthcoming because no such measurement has ever been made....and why? Because it doesn't happen outside the realm of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm. Again, let me know when the 2nd law is changed to say that it can.

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

I thought covailent bonds repel photons........

At what frequency are they vibrating?

You all seam to miss basic points about matter and how it might affect EME..

At what frequency are they vibrating?

Does that determine whether the covailent bonds can repel them?

You really don't know much about EME... Do you...? Why certain bands will warm matter and others will not... Or why certain bands that do warm water wont warm solids..etc..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..

Photons always travel at the speed of light. A particle travelling at 99.99% of the speed of light (relative to us) interacts with light exactly the same way as any other similar particle.

Do they? An unproven assumption.

The speed was not what I was showing you. It was contained energy. If a particle is cooler and collides with a warmer particle the whole must then readjust to accommodate the cooler mass, resulting in cooling.

I asked four times for you to give a mechanism that prevents thermal photons from hitting a warmer object. You never did and you never can because none exists. Your model of photons shunning hotter object is totally fraudulent.

Your killing me...

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

This is like telling me a car going 100mph will gain speed if a car at 50mph strikes it. When it strikes there is a net energy loss as the mass must warm it to its resonating frequency before it is capable of re-emission..

A photon vibrating at a lower rate, than an object it hits, has no positive effect. QM 101

I thought covailent bonds repel photons........

At what frequency are they vibrating?

You all seam to miss basic points about matter and how it might affect EME..

At what frequency are they vibrating?

Does that determine whether the covailent bonds can repel them?

You really don't know much about EME... Do you...? Why certain bands will warm matter and others will not... Or why certain bands that do warm water wont warm solids..etc..

You really don't know much about EME... Do you...?

I'd just like to learn about your claim that covailent bonds can repel photons.
Any links you can share?

 

[Wuwei]

You really have it bad...blind faith. The fact is that today..right here in the 21st century, science knows next to nothing about the fundamental mechanism of energy exchange...and here you are claiming that they know all about energy exchange and that because the 2nd law says that energy can not spontaneously move from cool to warm, you believe that is consistent with two way radiation exchange.

And repeating a falsehood any number of times will never make it true. Observation and measurement make it true...or at least feasible...two things you don't have in support of your beliefs.

I am curious...do you believe photons are real or are you able to admit that they are merely theoretical particles...stories we tell in an attempt to fill in blank spaces in our knowledge till such time as we can fill them in with observed, measured, quantified fact?

Scientists know that thermal photons cannot be diverted from a warmer object just because it's warmer. You have no mechanism or source to say otherwise.

 

[SSDD]

Scientists know that thermal photons cannot be diverted from a warmer object just because it's warmer. You have no mechanism or source to say otherwise.

Scientists don't even know whether or not photons exist...much less what they actually do. Once more, you prove that you are not able to differentiate between the real world and models.

And again, only a top shelf, first class idiot would suggest that because one can't describe a fundamental mechanism for a thing, that said thing is not real...refer to gravity.

And the only source I need for my position is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...two way energy flow violates that statement...do let me know when the 2nd law is altered to state that two way net energy flow is OK and that energy from a cool object can move to a warm object so long as the net energy movement is from warm to cool.. Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.

learn the difference between what is real and what is not. That alone will make you so much more intelligent.

 

[Wuwei]

Scientists don't even know whether or not photons exist...much less what they actually do. Once more, you prove that you are not able to differentiate between the real world and models.

And again, only a top shelf, first class idiot would suggest that because one can't describe a fundamental mechanism for a thing, that said thing is not real...refer to gravity.

And the only source I need for my position is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...two way energy flow violates that statement...do let me know when the 2nd law is altered to state that two way net energy flow is OK and that energy from a cool object can move to a warm object so long as the net energy movement is from warm to cool.. Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.

learn the difference between what is real and what is not. That alone will make you so much more intelligent.

As usual your emotions run rampant against the last 100 years of science.

energy from a cool object can move to a warm object so long as the net energy movement is from warm to cool.

That out-of-context fragment is correct. At least you understand what the real science is about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Scientists know that thermal photons cannot be diverted from a warmer object just because it's warmer. You have no mechanism or source to say otherwise.

Scientists don't even know whether or not photons exist...much less what they actually do. Once more, you prove that you are not able to differentiate between the real world and models.

And again, only a top shelf, first class idiot would suggest that because one can't describe a fundamental mechanism for a thing, that said thing is not real...refer to gravity.

And the only source I need for my position is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...two way energy flow violates that statement...do let me know when the 2nd law is altered to state that two way net energy flow is OK and that energy from a cool object can move to a warm object so long as the net energy movement is from warm to cool.. Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.

learn the difference between what is real and what is not. That alone will make you so much more intelligent.

Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.

Since all matter radiates in proportion to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, why do they need to communicate anything?

 

[Wuwei]

Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.

Since all matter radiates in proportion to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, why do they need to communicate anything?

Excellent point, although he is not capable of understanding that.

 

[SSDD]

Scientists don't even know whether or not photons exist...much less what they actually do. Once more, you prove that you are not able to differentiate between the real world and models.

And again, only a top shelf, first class idiot would suggest that because one can't describe a fundamental mechanism for a thing, that said thing is not real...refer to gravity.

And the only source I need for my position is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...two way energy flow violates that statement...do let me know when the 2nd law is altered to state that two way net energy flow is OK and that energy from a cool object can move to a warm object so long as the net energy movement is from warm to cool.. Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.

learn the difference between what is real and what is not. That alone will make you so much more intelligent.

As usual your emotions run rampant against the last 100 years of science.

Not only can you not differentiate between what is real and what is the product of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model, you are unable to differentiate between emotion and a cold calculated position dependent entirely on observed, measured, quantified evidence. You are the one operating from a position of belief in models..belief without the benefit of observed measured, quantified evidence being faith....and faith being an emotional state.

energy from a cool object can move to a warm object so long as the net energy movement is from warm to cool.

That out-of-context fragment is correct. At least you understand what the real science is about.

Again...failure to differentiate between what is real, and what is the output of a model. As to what real science is, I take it that you never bothered to look up a definition before you assigned the title of science to the practice of building unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

Science - the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms

Science, real science is about observation, measurement, and experiment. Can you provide me an observed, measured instance of two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature showing a two way transfer of a discrete wavelength of energy? Of course you can't. If you could, then we would not be having this discussion as I would be in agreement that energy flows in two directions regardless of what the second law of thermodynamics says. Alas, the second law still states that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm and there remains no observed, measured instance of two way energy flow. The claim that energy moves in both directions is nothing more than what a model told you and has no analog in the real world.

 

[SSDD]

Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.

Since all matter radiates in proportion to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, why do they need to communicate anything?

Excellent point, although he is not capable of understanding that.

Alas, I am afraid that it is once again you who seems incapable of understanding. All matter does not radiate in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature. I went to the trouble of asking that question of several top shelf physicists. The equation toddster, ian, and aparently you love to reference is this

.....which does indicate that the black body is radiating in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature, area, and emissivity. That equation, however, according to the physicists I questioned (and the emails are posted somewhere..feel free to look for them) only applies to black body radiators in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter. Since out here in the real universe, there are no black bodies isolated completely from other matter, the equation we use is as follows.....

....that equation describes a radiator in the presence of other matter...the equation states that it radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between the 4th power of its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings. Set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0....and there is no expression within that equation from which you might derive net....the equation describes a one way gross energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings. Net is an assumption based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and belief in net without any observed, measured evidence to support the belief is faith..no more...no less.

I know that you love to believe that I don't understand this...and that you have all the answers but if that were the case, why do I have to keep correcting you guys on these very basic issues..like the different equations used for a theoretical perfect black body all alone, in the presence of no other matter, and the equation which describes reality...that being a radiator which is not a theoretical perfect black body and which is in the presence of other matter. That is basic information...if you don't know even that much, why would you think you are so superior? CLUE: you know so little that you don't know how much you don't know.

And if you are oh so superior, and have this understanding which you like to believe I lack, why do you suppose it is that I keep asking for precisely the sort of data which would support your belief, but which we both know does not exist...anywhere....why do I have to keep pointing out the difference between what we can observe and measure and what is model output...two very different things. Do you think it is just coincidence that I keep hammering you with requests for data which you can not provide? At least I understand the difference between models and reality which puts me a giant step above you. You are operating from a position of faith in models while I am operating from a position of accepting the statements of the physical laws at face value based on observation, measurement, and quantification.

 

[Wuwei]

Again...failure to differentiate between what is real, and what is the output of a model. As to what real science is, I take it that you never bothered to look up a definition before you assigned the title of science to the practice of building unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

Science - the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms

Science, real science is about observation, measurement, and experiment. Can you provide me an observed, measured instance of two way energy flow made with an instrument at ambient temperature showing a two way transfer of a discrete wavelength of energy? Of course you can't. If you could, then we would not be having this discussion as I would be in agreement that energy flows in two directions regardless of what the second law of thermodynamics says. Alas, the second law still states that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm and there remains no observed, measured instance of two way energy flow. The claim that energy moves in both directions is nothing more than what a model told you and has no analog in the real world.

This is from a site you quoted often. All scientists agree with this. It's your problem if you don't agree with your own reference.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

 

[Wuwei]

Alas, I am afraid that it is once again you who seems incapable of understanding. All matter does not radiate in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature. I went to the trouble of asking that question of several top shelf physicists. The equation toddster, ian, and aparently you love to reference is this

.....which does indicate that the black body is radiating in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature, area, and emissivity. That equation, however, according to the physicists I questioned (and the emails are posted somewhere..feel free to look for them) only applies to black body radiators in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter. Since out here in the real universe, there are no black bodies isolated completely from other matter, the equation we use is as follows.....

....that equation describes a radiator in the presence of other matter...the equation states that it radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between the 4th power of its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings. Set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0....and there is no expression within that equation from which you might derive net....the equation describes a one way gross energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings. Net is an assumption based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and belief in net without any observed, measured evidence to support the belief is faith..no more...no less.

I know that you love to believe that I don't understand this...and that you have all the answers but if that were the case, why do I have to keep correcting you guys on these very basic issues..like the different equations used for a theoretical perfect black body all alone, in the presence of no other matter, and the equation which describes reality...that being a radiator which is not a theoretical perfect black body and which is in the presence of other matter. That is basic information...if you don't know even that much, why would you think you are so superior? CLUE: you know so little that you don't know how much you don't know.

And if you are oh so superior, and have this understanding which you like to believe I lack, why do you suppose it is that I keep asking for precisely the sort of data which would support your belief, but which we both know does not exist...anywhere....why do I have to keep pointing out the difference between what we can observe and measure and what is model output...two very different things. Do you think it is just coincidence that I keep hammering you with requests for data which you can not provide? At least I understand the difference between models and reality which puts me a giant step above you. You are operating from a position of faith in models while I am operating from a position of accepting the statements of the physical laws at face value based on observation, measurement, and quantification.

As I said, you are not capable of understanding the SB fourth power law.
Thanks for the verification.

 

[SSDD]

This is from a site you quoted often. All scientists agree with this. It's your problem if you don't agree with your own reference.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

So drop them an email and ask them upon what physical evidence they base that statement...ask them if two way net energy flow has ever been observed and measured....the fact that they believe that doesn't make it true any more than the fact that practically every doctor in the world believed that stress caused stomach ulcers not so long ago...and scientists have believed all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. This is just one more instance where belief in models over reality will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. There is a reason that science is losing much of the credibility that they gained over the years...and reliance on models in lieu of reality is a large part of that reason.

 

[SSDD]

As I said, you are not capable of understanding the SB fourth power law.
Thanks for the verification.

all you have done you nitwit is demonstrate that you don't grasp the law...to prove my point, lets hear your explanation as to why, if the first equation covers all radiators all the time, why it would be necessary to derive an equation that takes the presence of other matter into account? Why might that be? And in the 2nd equation, show me the expression by which you believe you can derive net energy flow.

The description I gave of the equations above is spot on, verified by several high profile physicists...physicists who, by the way, believe in AGW and believe the models. Your abject failure to even be able to grasp the meaning of such basic equations brings your ignorance on the topic into high relief.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Talk about smart photons..now they have to communicate to be sure that they only transfer in certain numbers in order to maintain the correct statistical percentages.

Since all matter radiates in proportion to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, why do they need to communicate anything?

Excellent point, although he is not capable of understanding that.

Alas, I am afraid that it is once again you who seems incapable of understanding. All matter does not radiate in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature. I went to the trouble of asking that question of several top shelf physicists. The equation toddster, ian, and aparently you love to reference is this

.....which does indicate that the black body is radiating in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature, area, and emissivity. That equation, however, according to the physicists I questioned (and the emails are posted somewhere..feel free to look for them) only applies to black body radiators in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter. Since out here in the real universe, there are no black bodies isolated completely from other matter, the equation we use is as follows.....

....that equation describes a radiator in the presence of other matter...the equation states that it radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between the 4th power of its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings. Set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0....and there is no expression within that equation from which you might derive net....the equation describes a one way gross energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings. Net is an assumption based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model and belief in net without any observed, measured evidence to support the belief is faith..no more...no less.

I know that you love to believe that I don't understand this...and that you have all the answers but if that were the case, why do I have to keep correcting you guys on these very basic issues..like the different equations used for a theoretical perfect black body all alone, in the presence of no other matter, and the equation which describes reality...that being a radiator which is not a theoretical perfect black body and which is in the presence of other matter. That is basic information...if you don't know even that much, why would you think you are so superior? CLUE: you know so little that you don't know how much you don't know.

And if you are oh so superior, and have this understanding which you like to believe I lack, why do you suppose it is that I keep asking for precisely the sort of data which would support your belief, but which we both know does not exist...anywhere....why do I have to keep pointing out the difference between what we can observe and measure and what is model output...two very different things. Do you think it is just coincidence that I keep hammering you with requests for data which you can not provide? At least I understand the difference between models and reality which puts me a giant step above you. You are operating from a position of faith in models while I am operating from a position of accepting the statements of the physical laws at face value based on observation, measurement, and quantification.

All matter does not radiate in proportion to the 4th power of its absolute temperature.

It really does.

I went to the trouble of asking that question of several top shelf physicists.

So why do you still propagate your faulty understanding?

only applies to black body radiators in a vacuum, not in the presence of any other matter.

So post some links that agree with your dimmer switch theory of radiating. And, more importantly, some links that agree with your claim that cooler matter ceases radiating and that objects at equilibrium cease radiating.