Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[Toddsterpatriot]

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement. Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence. Let me know when you get some evidence.

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.


Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

Poor SSDD, smarter than Einstein, yet his brilliance goes unacknowledged.

 

[SSDD]

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement. Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence. Let me know when you get some evidence.

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.


Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "
.

Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Here...more from Einstein on the things you are so certain are true...

Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. But he certainly believes that, as his knowledge increases, his picture of reality will become simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions.

 

[jc456]

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement. Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence. Let me know when you get some evidence.

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.


Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

Poor SSDD, smarter than Einstein, yet his brilliance goes unacknowledged.

But no one has presented any factual observed data. so far evah!!!

Post up Einstein's observations. that should shut us up quickly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement. Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence. Let me know when you get some evidence.

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.


Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "
.

Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Here...more from Einstein on the things you are so certain are true...

Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. But he certainly believes that, as his knowledge increases, his picture of reality will become simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions.

Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Or you can post something, anything, from someone who proved he was wrong about equilibrium?

Because your, "Einstein doesn't understand S-B like I do" routine is wearing thin.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement. Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence. Let me know when you get some evidence.

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.


Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

Poor SSDD, smarter than Einstein, yet his brilliance goes unacknowledged.

But no one has presented any factual observed data. so far evah!!!

Post up Einstein's observations. that should shut us up quickly.

But no one has presented any factual observed data. so far evah!!!

 

[jc456]

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement. Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence. Let me know when you get some evidence.

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.


Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "
.

Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Here...more from Einstein on the things you are so certain are true...

Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. But he certainly believes that, as his knowledge increases, his picture of reality will become simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions.

Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Or you can post something, anything, from someone who proved he was wrong about equilibrium?

Because your, "Einstein doesn't understand S-B like I do" routine is wearing thin.

funny, you have no experiment to post up to validate his theory. right?

 

[jc456]

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement. Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence. Let me know when you get some evidence.

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement.


Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

Poor SSDD, smarter than Einstein, yet his brilliance goes unacknowledged.

But no one has presented any factual observed data. so far evah!!!

Post up Einstein's observations. that should shut us up quickly.

But no one has presented any factual observed data. so far evah!!!

View attachment 123255

same shit different day. That's been discussed already, you need some new material that is accurate.

 

[SSDD]

Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Or you can post something, anything, from someone who proved he was wrong about equilibrium?

Because your, "Einstein doesn't understand S-B like I do" routine is wearing thin.

So the answer is no..you can't post any of the evidence he gathered because he didn't gather any...no one did...this all remains nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more.

I will look occasionally to see if you post any actual observations or measurements of net energy exchange...till then, you have no evidence to support either your beliefs, or your claims that I am wrong...it's back to ignore with you because you are no more interesting now than you ever were.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Or you can post something, anything, from someone who proved he was wrong about equilibrium?

Because your, "Einstein doesn't understand S-B like I do" routine is wearing thin.

So the answer is no..you can't post any of the evidence he gathered because he didn't gather any...no one did...this all remains nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more.

I will look occasionally to see if you post any actual observations or measurements of net energy exchange...till then, you have no evidence to support either your beliefs, or your claims that I am wrong...it's back to ignore with you because you are no more interesting now than you ever were.

Besides you, is there anyone else who has discovered this "no energy radiated at equilibrium" theory?
Anyone else who thinks Einstein and Planck were wrong about equilibrium?

Or are you the only one with your unique misinterpretation?

Your total lack of any back up, at all, isn't helping your claims.

So you run away again. We'll keep pointing out your errors.
You keep telling everyone you understand more than Einstein.
It's cute.

 

[jc456]

Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Or you can post something, anything, from someone who proved he was wrong about equilibrium?

Because your, "Einstein doesn't understand S-B like I do" routine is wearing thin.

So the answer is no..you can't post any of the evidence he gathered because he didn't gather any...no one did...this all remains nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more.

I will look occasionally to see if you post any actual observations or measurements of net energy exchange...till then, you have no evidence to support either your beliefs, or your claims that I am wrong...it's back to ignore with you because you are no more interesting now than you ever were.

Besides you, is there anyone else who has discovered this "no energy radiated at equilibrium" theory?
Anyone else who thinks Einstein and Planck were wrong about equilibrium?

Or are you the only one with your unique misinterpretation?

Your total lack of any back up, at all, isn't helping your claims.

So you run away again. We'll keep pointing out your errors.
You keep telling everyone you understand more than Einstein.
It's cute.

huh? you've provided squat juice. Perhaps repeat wash and rinse gets old. It seems that is all you have. still no observed experiment. right? still you got squat juice. Now, let's repeat, wash and rinse again. I'll wait. And you know what? I'm going to write the same thing. Ever feel like moving forward or do you like hanging out in rabbit holes to nowhere?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Or you can post something, anything, from someone who proved he was wrong about equilibrium?

Because your, "Einstein doesn't understand S-B like I do" routine is wearing thin.

So the answer is no..you can't post any of the evidence he gathered because he didn't gather any...no one did...this all remains nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more.

I will look occasionally to see if you post any actual observations or measurements of net energy exchange...till then, you have no evidence to support either your beliefs, or your claims that I am wrong...it's back to ignore with you because you are no more interesting now than you ever were.

Besides you, is there anyone else who has discovered this "no energy radiated at equilibrium" theory?
Anyone else who thinks Einstein and Planck were wrong about equilibrium?

Or are you the only one with your unique misinterpretation?

Your total lack of any back up, at all, isn't helping your claims.

So you run away again. We'll keep pointing out your errors.
You keep telling everyone you understand more than Einstein.
It's cute.

huh? you've provided squat juice. Perhaps repeat wash and rinse gets old. It seems that is all you have. still no observed experiment. right? still you got squat juice. Now, let's repeat, wash and rinse again. I'll wait. And you know what? I'm going to write the same thing. Ever feel like moving forward or do you like hanging out in rabbit holes to nowhere?

still no observed experiment. right?

There is the data you keep ignoring. I could find tons more like it, but you'd ignore it too, so why bother?

 

[jc456]

Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Or you can post something, anything, from someone who proved he was wrong about equilibrium?

Because your, "Einstein doesn't understand S-B like I do" routine is wearing thin.

So the answer is no..you can't post any of the evidence he gathered because he didn't gather any...no one did...this all remains nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more.

I will look occasionally to see if you post any actual observations or measurements of net energy exchange...till then, you have no evidence to support either your beliefs, or your claims that I am wrong...it's back to ignore with you because you are no more interesting now than you ever were.

Besides you, is there anyone else who has discovered this "no energy radiated at equilibrium" theory?
Anyone else who thinks Einstein and Planck were wrong about equilibrium?

Or are you the only one with your unique misinterpretation?

Your total lack of any back up, at all, isn't helping your claims.

So you run away again. We'll keep pointing out your errors.
You keep telling everyone you understand more than Einstein.
It's cute.

huh? you've provided squat juice. Perhaps repeat wash and rinse gets old. It seems that is all you have. still no observed experiment. right? still you got squat juice. Now, let's repeat, wash and rinse again. I'll wait. And you know what? I'm going to write the same thing. Ever feel like moving forward or do you like hanging out in rabbit holes to nowhere?

still no observed experiment. right?

View attachment 123295

There is the data you keep ignoring. I could find tons more like it, but you'd ignore it too, so why bother?

hahahahahaha, right on queue, dude, wash rinse repeat, it's all you got. same old rat hole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe you can post some of his experiments...some of the evidence he collected...

Or you can post something, anything, from someone who proved he was wrong about equilibrium?

Because your, "Einstein doesn't understand S-B like I do" routine is wearing thin.

So the answer is no..you can't post any of the evidence he gathered because he didn't gather any...no one did...this all remains nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more.

I will look occasionally to see if you post any actual observations or measurements of net energy exchange...till then, you have no evidence to support either your beliefs, or your claims that I am wrong...it's back to ignore with you because you are no more interesting now than you ever were.

Besides you, is there anyone else who has discovered this "no energy radiated at equilibrium" theory?
Anyone else who thinks Einstein and Planck were wrong about equilibrium?

Or are you the only one with your unique misinterpretation?

Your total lack of any back up, at all, isn't helping your claims.

So you run away again. We'll keep pointing out your errors.
You keep telling everyone you understand more than Einstein.
It's cute.

huh? you've provided squat juice. Perhaps repeat wash and rinse gets old. It seems that is all you have. still no observed experiment. right? still you got squat juice. Now, let's repeat, wash and rinse again. I'll wait. And you know what? I'm going to write the same thing. Ever feel like moving forward or do you like hanging out in rabbit holes to nowhere?

still no observed experiment. right?

View attachment 123295

There is the data you keep ignoring. I could find tons more like it, but you'd ignore it too, so why bother?

hahahahahaha, right on queue, dude, wash rinse repeat, it's all you got. same old rat hole.

Right. Actual data. Inconvenient for your claims.

 

[jc456]

So the answer is no..you can't post any of the evidence he gathered because he didn't gather any...no one did...this all remains nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...nothing more.

I will look occasionally to see if you post any actual observations or measurements of net energy exchange...till then, you have no evidence to support either your beliefs, or your claims that I am wrong...it's back to ignore with you because you are no more interesting now than you ever were.

Besides you, is there anyone else who has discovered this "no energy radiated at equilibrium" theory?
Anyone else who thinks Einstein and Planck were wrong about equilibrium?

Or are you the only one with your unique misinterpretation?

Your total lack of any back up, at all, isn't helping your claims.

So you run away again. We'll keep pointing out your errors.
You keep telling everyone you understand more than Einstein.
It's cute.

huh? you've provided squat juice. Perhaps repeat wash and rinse gets old. It seems that is all you have. still no observed experiment. right? still you got squat juice. Now, let's repeat, wash and rinse again. I'll wait. And you know what? I'm going to write the same thing. Ever feel like moving forward or do you like hanging out in rabbit holes to nowhere?

still no observed experiment. right?

View attachment 123295

There is the data you keep ignoring. I could find tons more like it, but you'd ignore it too, so why bother?

hahahahahaha, right on queue, dude, wash rinse repeat, it's all you got. same old rat hole.

Right. Actual data. Inconvenient for your claims.

actual data? what data exactly? can you prove it came from the atmosphere? dude, it's been explained multiple times, by multiple times. and yet you keep introducing it. fail!!!!! wash rinse repeat. Willard.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Besides you, is there anyone else who has discovered this "no energy radiated at equilibrium" theory?
Anyone else who thinks Einstein and Planck were wrong about equilibrium?

Or are you the only one with your unique misinterpretation?

Your total lack of any back up, at all, isn't helping your claims.

So you run away again. We'll keep pointing out your errors.
You keep telling everyone you understand more than Einstein.
It's cute.

huh? you've provided squat juice. Perhaps repeat wash and rinse gets old. It seems that is all you have. still no observed experiment. right? still you got squat juice. Now, let's repeat, wash and rinse again. I'll wait. And you know what? I'm going to write the same thing. Ever feel like moving forward or do you like hanging out in rabbit holes to nowhere?

still no observed experiment. right?

View attachment 123295

There is the data you keep ignoring. I could find tons more like it, but you'd ignore it too, so why bother?

hahahahahaha, right on queue, dude, wash rinse repeat, it's all you got. same old rat hole.

Right. Actual data. Inconvenient for your claims.

actual data? what data exactly? can you prove it came from the atmosphere? dude, it's been explained multiple times, by multiple times. and yet you keep introducing it. fail!!!!! wash rinse repeat. Willard.

actual data? what data exactly?

The data measuring downward IR from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.

can you prove it came from the atmosphere?

Yes.

dude, it's been explained multiple times, by multiple times.

Right, smart photons, smart emitters.

and yet you keep introducing it.

Yes, data that highlights your idiocy is useful.

 

[SSDD]

Besides you, is there anyone else who has discovered this "no energy radiated at equilibrium" theory?
Anyone else who thinks Einstein and Planck were wrong about equilibrium?

Or are you the only one with your unique misinterpretation?

Your total lack of any back up, at all, isn't helping your claims.

So you run away again. We'll keep pointing out your errors.
You keep telling everyone you understand more than Einstein.
It's cute.

huh? you've provided squat juice. Perhaps repeat wash and rinse gets old. It seems that is all you have. still no observed experiment. right? still you got squat juice. Now, let's repeat, wash and rinse again. I'll wait. And you know what? I'm going to write the same thing. Ever feel like moving forward or do you like hanging out in rabbit holes to nowhere?

still no observed experiment. right?

View attachment 123295

There is the data you keep ignoring. I could find tons more like it, but you'd ignore it too, so why bother?

hahahahahaha, right on queue, dude, wash rinse repeat, it's all you got. same old rat hole.

Right. Actual data. Inconvenient for your claims.

actual data? what data exactly? can you prove it came from the atmosphere? dude, it's been explained multiple times, by multiple times. and yet you keep introducing it. fail!!!!! wash rinse repeat. Willard.

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation when in fact, it is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation and believing that calling it net radiation makes it net radiation.

Same bullshit different day....they want their wacko views to be real so badly that they will grab any straw..no matter how ridiculous in an attempt to convince someone...anyone...they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data with instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

huh? you've provided squat juice. Perhaps repeat wash and rinse gets old. It seems that is all you have. still no observed experiment. right? still you got squat juice. Now, let's repeat, wash and rinse again. I'll wait. And you know what? I'm going to write the same thing. Ever feel like moving forward or do you like hanging out in rabbit holes to nowhere?

still no observed experiment. right?

View attachment 123295

There is the data you keep ignoring. I could find tons more like it, but you'd ignore it too, so why bother?

hahahahahaha, right on queue, dude, wash rinse repeat, it's all you got. same old rat hole.

Right. Actual data. Inconvenient for your claims.

actual data? what data exactly? can you prove it came from the atmosphere? dude, it's been explained multiple times, by multiple times. and yet you keep introducing it. fail!!!!! wash rinse repeat. Willard.

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation when in fact, it is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation and believing that calling it net radiation makes it net radiation.

Same bullshit different day....they want their wacko views to be real so badly that they will grab any straw..no matter how ridiculous in an attempt to convince someone...anyone...they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data with instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere?

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation

It's funny that you think no radiation travels from the atmosphere to the surface, unless an instrument is cooled.
Suddenly, in that case, the atmosphere is allowed to radiate downward.

If only Einstein and Planck (or anyone) had the unique understanding of physics you do.

they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data

You seem to believe your complete lack of agreement, with any scientist, helps your claim to know more than Einstein.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none. DERP!

 

[jc456]

still no observed experiment. right?

View attachment 123295

There is the data you keep ignoring. I could find tons more like it, but you'd ignore it too, so why bother?

hahahahahaha, right on queue, dude, wash rinse repeat, it's all you got. same old rat hole.

Right. Actual data. Inconvenient for your claims.

actual data? what data exactly? can you prove it came from the atmosphere? dude, it's been explained multiple times, by multiple times. and yet you keep introducing it. fail!!!!! wash rinse repeat. Willard.

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation when in fact, it is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation and believing that calling it net radiation makes it net radiation.

Same bullshit different day....they want their wacko views to be real so badly that they will grab any straw..no matter how ridiculous in an attempt to convince someone...anyone...they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data with instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere?

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation

It's funny that you think no radiation travels from the atmosphere to the surface, unless an instrument is cooled.
Suddenly, in that case, the atmosphere is allowed to radiate downward.

If only Einstein and Planck (or anyone) had the unique understanding of physics you do.

they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data

You seem to believe your complete lack of agreement, with any scientist, helps your claim to know more than Einstein.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none. DERP!

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist. and, it has been explained intensely in this thread as well as many other threads. No experiment that will validate your insane claim. None, zip. and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

hahahahahaha, right on queue, dude, wash rinse repeat, it's all you got. same old rat hole.

Right. Actual data. Inconvenient for your claims.

actual data? what data exactly? can you prove it came from the atmosphere? dude, it's been explained multiple times, by multiple times. and yet you keep introducing it. fail!!!!! wash rinse repeat. Willard.

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation when in fact, it is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation and believing that calling it net radiation makes it net radiation.

Same bullshit different day....they want their wacko views to be real so badly that they will grab any straw..no matter how ridiculous in an attempt to convince someone...anyone...they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data with instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere?

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation

It's funny that you think no radiation travels from the atmosphere to the surface, unless an instrument is cooled.
Suddenly, in that case, the atmosphere is allowed to radiate downward.

If only Einstein and Planck (or anyone) had the unique understanding of physics you do.

they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data

You seem to believe your complete lack of agreement, with any scientist, helps your claim to know more than Einstein.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none. DERP!

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist. and, it has been explained intensely in this thread as well as many other threads. No experiment that will validate your insane claim. None, zip. and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none.

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist.

For once, you're right.
No backup exists for SSDD's silly claims.

and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Why would a cool object heat up a warm object? That's stupid.
You must not understand Stefan-Boltzmann.

 

[jc456]

Right. Actual data. Inconvenient for your claims.

actual data? what data exactly? can you prove it came from the atmosphere? dude, it's been explained multiple times, by multiple times. and yet you keep introducing it. fail!!!!! wash rinse repeat. Willard.

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation when in fact, it is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation and believing that calling it net radiation makes it net radiation.

Same bullshit different day....they want their wacko views to be real so badly that they will grab any straw..no matter how ridiculous in an attempt to convince someone...anyone...they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data with instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere?

Funny...he shows data gathered with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere and believes it is back radiation

It's funny that you think no radiation travels from the atmosphere to the surface, unless an instrument is cooled.
Suddenly, in that case, the atmosphere is allowed to radiate downward.

If only Einstein and Planck (or anyone) had the unique understanding of physics you do.

they seem to believe that if enough people agree with them that their beliefs will be true...who needs observation, and actual measured data

You seem to believe your complete lack of agreement, with any scientist, helps your claim to know more than Einstein.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none. DERP!

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist. and, it has been explained intensely in this thread as well as many other threads. No experiment that will validate your insane claim. None, zip. and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Don't provide backup, because you can't, because there is none.

can't provide you with something that doesn't exist.

For once, you're right.
No backup exists for SSDD's silly claims.

and we're still waiting on that data that cool objects heat up warm objects. still nothing, zippola.

Why would a cool object heat up a warm object? That's stupid.
You must not understand Stefan-Boltzmann.

don't worry about me, I don't fall for the back radiation bullcrap that plays out.