Relativity and climate science

[SSDD]

Why do you imagine that photons must know that they are to vanish or that they vanish at all.

Because we know that objects above absolute zero radiate constantly.

Of course they do...but they don't necessarily have to radiate in every direction at once....no such thing has ever been proven. Air pressure in a tire is constant in every direction...punch a hole in it and air escapes in that direction...air pressure outside the tire is constant all around it...do you think that when you punch a hole in the tire that air from the outside tries to go into the tire when the pressure is greater inside the tire? Do outside air molecules have to know not to attempt to enter in through the leak?

, we're aware of your smart photon argument.

Again, pure stupidity. If I tell you that if you drop a rock it will fall towards the earth, do you think rocks are smart and somehow know which way to fall? If I tell you that if you run a wire from a 12 volt battery to a 6 volt battery that the electrons from the 6 volt battery are smart and therefore know not to attempt to run up the wire to the 12 volt battery? In the case of iron oxide forming in the presence of iron and oxygen, do you think there is some intelligence or choice going on with the molecules in question or the chemical reaction in general? How about wood burning in oxygen? Do you think the oxygen molecules decide whether they be forming H2O or CO2 or any of the other compounds involved? Do you think any choice is involved at all? Do you think they could opt out if they wanted?

Tell me how much intelligent choice do you think is involved with every other energy exchange ever observed where the energy moves in the direction predicted by the laws of physics? Do you think some choice is present in all of them....or some of them....or do you think photons are somehow exempt? What form of mental illness makes you think photons are exhibiting some form of intelligence when they obey the laws of physics but all other energy transfers are just doing what they have to do?

By the way....lying about or misrepresenting another's argument is being about as pissy as one can get.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you imagine that photons must know that they are to vanish or that they vanish at all.

Because we know that objects above absolute zero radiate constantly.

Of course they do...but they don't necessarily have to radiate in every direction at once....no such thing has ever been proven. Air pressure in a tire is constant in every direction...punch a hole in it and air escapes in that direction...air pressure outside the tire is constant all around it...do you think that when you punch a hole in the tire that air from the outside tries to go into the tire when the pressure is greater inside the tire? Do outside air molecules have to know not to attempt to enter in through the leak?

, we're aware of your smart photon argument.

Again, pure stupidity. If I tell you that if you drop a rock it will fall towards the earth, do you think rocks are smart and somehow know which way to fall? If I tell you that if you run a wire from a 12 volt battery to a 6 volt battery that the electrons from the 6 volt battery are smart and therefore know not to attempt to run up the wire to the 12 volt battery? In the case of iron oxide forming in the presence of iron and oxygen, do you think there is some intelligence or choice going on with the molecules in question or the chemical reaction in general? How about wood burning in oxygen? Do you think the oxygen molecules decide whether they be forming H2O or CO2 or any of the other compounds involved? Do you think any choice is involved at all? Do you think they could opt out if they wanted?

Tell me how much intelligent choice do you think is involved with every other energy exchange ever observed where the energy moves in the direction predicted by the laws of physics? Do you think some choice is present in all of them....or some of them....or do you think photons are somehow exempt? What form of mental illness makes you think photons are exhibiting some form of intelligence when they obey the laws of physics but all other energy transfers are just doing what they have to do?

By the way....lying about or misrepresenting another's argument is being about as pissy as one can get.

Of course they do...but they don't necessarily have to radiate in every direction at once....no such thing has ever been proven.

You have any experiments that show they radiate in a limited numbers of directions?

When I walk through the chilly Chicago winter, why can I see the snow bank in front of me? Why does energy travel from the sub-freeezing snow to my 98 degree optic nerve?

 

[SSDD]

You have any experiments that show they radiate in a limited numbers of directions?

Of course. Every observation of spontaneous energy transfer ever made. There are no observations of backradiation therefore there is overwhelming evidence that A) photons somehow disappear before they reach an object that is warmer than their source, or B) they simply don't radiate in the direction of an object that is warmer than the source from which they were emitted. I favor B.

I walk through the chilly Chicago winter, why can I see the snow bank in front of me? Why does energy travel from the sub-freeezing snow to my 98 degree optic nerve?

What is the temperature of the source of that reflected light relative to your eye. Do you think at all? Or perhaps you think the snow is the source of the light...is that it?

 

[Abraham3]

He didn't say "transfer", he said "radiate".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"I'll take Science for $1000, Alex

Alex: Relativity and climate science

Contestant: What are 2 things than have nothing whatsoever in common

Alex: Correct!!

 

[IanC]

There is a more direct connection.

Most of the denialists here embrace the "There's no backradiation!" absurdity.

Relativity says that information may not be transmitted faster-than-light. Yet the "no backradiation" theory says that photons heading for a warmer surface instantly know they're supposed to vanish.

Hence, the "no backradiation!" theory violates relativity, making AGW denialists also relativity denialists.

For the life of me I can't understand thy this topic makes all you warmers and lukewarmers so stupid. Why do you imagine that photons must know that they are to vanish or that they vanish at all. The argument that I put forward is that they don't radiate in the direction of less entropy in the first place.

Every observation ever made is of energy moving towards more entropy. Do you think air molecules inside a leaking tire must know that the pressure outside the tire is lower and that they should move out through the leak? What about when the pressure inside equalizes with the outside? Do you think they must somehow know this has happened and that now the ones left shouldn't try to escape?

Hook a 12 volt battery to a wire and a 6 volt battery to the other end and then run a wire from the 6 volt battery to ground. Do you think those electrons in the 6 volt battery must know that they can't flow upstream to the 12 volt battery Or do you think that maybe some of them try and vanish? Or do you think some choice is involved in the electrons in the 6 volt battery moving towards the 12 volt battery or to ground? Or do you think that some choice or intelligence is in loved in eventually sending them all to ground?

Every observation ever made is of energy moving towards more entropy. No observation has ever been made of energy spontaneously moving towards less entropy. No one questions any of these energy movements or suggests that they are the result of intelligent choice or decision making on the part of the energy in question.

Why then in the.case of photons which are theoretical and remain unobserved do you ascribe intelligence when they simply obey the laws of physics or believe that the laws of physics are somehow different for them than for every other energy transfer ever observed?

The main reason why your examples are wrong is because you are attributing properies of matter to photons. Molecules of air/electrons cannot pass through each other. Photons can and do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have any experiments that show they radiate in a limited numbers of directions?

Of course. Every observation of spontaneous energy transfer ever made. There are no observations of backradiation therefore there is overwhelming evidence that A) photons somehow disappear before they reach an object that is warmer than their source, or B) they simply don't radiate in the direction of an object that is warmer than the source from which they were emitted. I favor B.

I walk through the chilly Chicago winter, why can I see the snow bank in front of me? Why does energy travel from the sub-freeezing snow to my 98 degree optic nerve?

What is the temperature of the source of that reflected light relative to your eye. Do you think at all? Or perhaps you think the snow is the source of the light...is that it?

What is the temperature of the source of that reflected light relative to your eye.

Your argument keeps evolving. LOL!
It doesn't matter, the snow is radiating energy to something warmer.

Or perhaps you think the snow is the source of the light...is that it?

The snow absorbed energy from the sun. Then, the snow radiated energy to my warmer than the snow optic nerve. Why isn't that a violation of your 2nd Law?

 

[IanC]

You can't see snow on a dark moonless night away from city lights.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't see snow on a dark moonless night away from city lights.

And yet, it is still radiating energy.

 

[IanC]

You can't see snow on a dark moonless night away from city lights.

And yet, it is still radiating energy.

Yes it is. But not visible light. A snake's infrared receptors may be able to pick it up but not human eyes.

 

[skookerasbil]

this may well be the gayest thread ever on the ENVIRONMENT forum........and shit, that's sayin' something.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo Frank........this Mamooth?? For the longest time, thought it was a chick.( the whole gay cat avatar)

Curious what you think?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yo Frank........this Mamooth?? For the longest time, thought it was a chick.( the whole gay cat avatar)

Curious what you think?

I thought mammoth was Jake Starkey sock account

 

[Dot Com]

looks like the deniers are losing/lost this round.

 

[flacaltenn]

Visible light is just a special case of radiativemenergy. By definition it comes from very warm objects. Thats what boltzman and bbody theory says. But all bodies generate in the long wave wave freqs as well.

The world looks very different in IR. If you ever were in a tank simulator, youd know that your IR display can be seeing objects that are colder than the detector.

There are no statements in bbody theory about selective radiation. The pattern is determined only by the shape of the emitting surface. And yes ----- you can count IR photons coming off of a snow bank. In fact ive done that with multi spectral images from LANdSat and other other sensors.

 

[flacaltenn]

looks like the deniers are losing/lost this round.

Yoou should keep your day job dotty. You suck at sports play by play. This is largely a SKEPTIC ONLY scuffle here. Unlike your homey team, we dont all think alike..

 

[SSDD]

He didn't say "transfer", he said "radiate".

So radiating doesn't constitute an energy transfer from one place to another?

 

[SSDD]

The main reason why your examples are wrong is because you are attributing properies of matter to photons. Molecules of air/electrons cannot pass through each other. Photons can and do.

You say that as if it were true and you could prove it....ok....prove first, that it is true, and then lets see the proof that it actually happens. You might want to first prove that photons actually exist. Einstein had his questions and Schrodenger certainly didn't believe in them.

 

[SSDD]

Your argument keeps evolving. LOL!
It doesn't matter, the snow is radiating energy to something warmer.

My argument isn't changing at all....it is just taking a looooooonnnnnnggggg time for you to catch up. Where is that light coming from? Does the light originate with the snow?

snow absorbed energy from the sun. Then, the snow radiated energy to my warmer than the snow optic nerve. Why isn't that a violation of your 2nd Law?

[/quote]

Your eye is warmer than the sun where the light comes from? What sort of eyes do you have?

 

[SSDD]

You can't see snow on a dark moonless night away from city lights.

You either have light coming in from stars or you have light bouncing off clouds....what you don't have is absolute darkness. What you do have is a light source that is warmer than your eye. You know this stuff Ian, why pretend that you don't in order to try to bolster someone's idiot argument? And if you don't....I mean, really don't know it, then that's enough said.