Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[CrusaderFrank]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire. In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

He will never see it...he has been completely bamboozled by the models to the point that he is unable to separate them from reality...they are his reality and it doesn't matter a whit to him that the energy movement he describes remains unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable, even though he claims the energy movement is happening at a magnitude that can actually alter the global climate...he believes and his faith is strong.

using their logic when the pressure in the tire is at 31, the pressure from the pump would only be 1 psi (32-31) and therefore impossible to pressurize any further.

 

[IanC]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire. In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

There are several things that make your counter example totally different.

First off, you are using an air pump that produces pressure from an outside power source. If you used a cannister of air, attached it to the tire, then after a nominal amount of time both the cannister and the tire would have the same internal pressure. The total amount of air molecules would be unchanged, but the distribution has changed. Entropy has increased. You could have harnessed some of that entropy change to do work. That is why air tools are a popular choice.

Secondly, you are conflating the properties of radiation with the properties of matter. Only one particle of matter can occupy a point of space at one time. Light has no such restriction. Any number of photons can exist at one point in space, travelling in any direction, all at the same time. Radiation does not interact with other radiation, there is no change in a photon between emission and absorption. (Yada,yada,yada, expansion of space, curvature of space by gravity, matter mediated refraction and reflection).

 

[IanC]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire. In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

He will never see it...he has been completely bamboozled by the models to the point that he is unable to separate them from reality...they are his reality and it doesn't matter a whit to him that the energy movement he describes remains unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable, even though he claims the energy movement is happening at a magnitude that can actually alter the global climate...he believes and his faith is strong.

using their logic when the pressure in the tire is at 31, the pressure from the pump would only be 1 psi (32-31) and therefore impossible to pressurize any further.

Hahahaha, WTF are you talking about? Using the gas laws, if you double the volume then the pressure is halved. If you had two tires, one at 64 psi and one at zero, then when you connect them you will have two tires at 32 psi. And an increase of entropy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire. In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

He will never see it...he has been completely bamboozled by the models to the point that he is unable to separate them from reality...they are his reality and it doesn't matter a whit to him that the energy movement he describes remains unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable, even though he claims the energy movement is happening at a magnitude that can actually alter the global climate...he believes and his faith is strong.

using their logic when the pressure in the tire is at 31, the pressure from the pump would only be 1 psi (32-31) and therefore impossible to pressurize any further.

Hahahaha, WTF are you talking about? Using the gas laws, if you double the volume then the pressure is halved. If you had two tires, one at 64 psi and one at zero, then when you connect them you will have two tires at 32 psi. And an increase of entropy.

Are you already backing away from your "Net flow" model? I gave a specific example using the parameters you described to show that the net flow cannot work.

 

[Wuwei]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire. In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

I did a quick mathematical check on IanC's monetary example. Within 15 minutes the 10% exchange would amount to much less than 1 penny. In one hour it would be much less than one quintillionth of a penny. Unless you go to the monetary system in Venezuela it would be impracticable to carry on an exchange.

Thermal equilibrium is the same. Mathematically it never comes to equilibrium. In reality it becomes immeasurably small.

I don't like quibbling on examples, but it was an interesting exercise.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire. In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

I did a quick mathematical check on IanC's monetary example. Within 15 minutes the 10% exchange would amount to much less than 1 penny. In one hour it would be much less than one quintillionth of a penny. Unless you go to the monetary system in Venezuela it would be impracticable to carry on an exchange.

Thermal equilibrium is the same. Mathematically it never comes to equilibrium. In reality it becomes immeasurably small.

I don't like quibbling on examples, but it was an interesting exercise.

So you're telling us that when the tire is as 31psi, the pump pushing out air at 1 psi will bring the system to equilibrium?

See, in reality, the 32psi per minute pump will fill the tire to 32 in a minute, under your methodology it will take forever

 

[Wuwei]

So you're telling us that when the tire is as 31psi, the pump pushing out air at 1 psi will bring the system to equilibrium?

See, in reality, the 32psi per minute pump will fill the tire to 32 in a minute, under your methodology it will take forever

Reread my post. I didn't say anything about tires.

 

[IanC]

You assume net in every example...and you assume it based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and your faith in them...there is no expression there from which to derive net...with the expression T - Tc you can only derive the gross change

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire. In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

I did a quick mathematical check on IanC's monetary example. Within 15 minutes the 10% exchange would amount to much less than 1 penny. In one hour it would be much less than one quintillionth of a penny. Unless you go to the monetary system in Venezuela it would be impracticable to carry on an exchange.

Thermal equilibrium is the same. Mathematically it never comes to equilibrium. In reality it becomes immeasurably small.

I don't like quibbling on examples, but it was an interesting exercise.

Thanks. I was going to say 20 minutes, as I use certain landmarks in estimating values. 2^20 is about a million. A full hour was overkill.

 

[IanC]

First, there is no expression T - Tc in the equation.

Second, any time you subtract one value from another you are implying a net value from two gross values. Subtracting 25 dollars from 100 dollars gives you a net value of 75 dollars.

If two people start with $1000 and $500 respectively, then give 10% of their money to the other every minute, then after an hour they will each have $750 and no more change in total will happen.

That sounds clever, but that's not how energy flows. If you wanted to inflate a flat tire, starting at 0 pressure by hooking it to an air pump that generated 32psi per minute, it would take 1 minute to pressurize the tire. In your example it would take much longer, perhaps infinity, as the pressure in the tire approached 32psi.

Do you see why you're wrong and SSDD is correctly explaining the phenomenon?

He will never see it...he has been completely bamboozled by the models to the point that he is unable to separate them from reality...they are his reality and it doesn't matter a whit to him that the energy movement he describes remains unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable, even though he claims the energy movement is happening at a magnitude that can actually alter the global climate...he believes and his faith is strong.

using their logic when the pressure in the tire is at 31, the pressure from the pump would only be 1 psi (32-31) and therefore impossible to pressurize any further.

Hahahaha, WTF are you talking about? Using the gas laws, if you double the volume then the pressure is halved. If you had two tires, one at 64 psi and one at zero, then when you connect them you will have two tires at 32 psi. And an increase of entropy.

Are you already backing away from your "Net flow" model? I gave a specific example using the parameters you described to show that the net flow cannot work.

My example was money. If you trade 10% back and forth, you quickly come to equilibrium with both piles of cash being equal even though 20% of the total cash is being exchanged at every iteration.

You gave an odd and illogical counter example that had an outside power source, and was constrained by the properties of matter.

Frankly, I didn't understand your point because you didn't make one.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you post an example of "Net energy" flow by using currency, then when it's pointed out that your example does not related to the topic...

 

[Wuwei]

So you post an example of "Net energy" flow by using currency, then when it's pointed out that your example does not related to the topic..

IanC's example was about the nature of thermal equilibrium. Your example has nothing to do with thermal equilibrium. Frank, you and SSDD go up against people who know science. But you don't understand science. You have to be prepared to be wrong.

 

[IanC]

So you post an example of "Net energy" flow by using currency, then when it's pointed out that your example does not related to the topic...

Looks like someone laced Homer's cereal with chunks of sodium.

 

[SSDD]

You gave an odd and illogical counter example that had an outside power source, and was constrained by the properties of matter.

Absolutely laughable ian...you are complaining about his "odd and illogical" example which can relate to reality when your "example" is entirely fictitious ...it is not relatable to reality in any as it is completely unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable...

I'm stepping off onto a tangent here, but I would wager that you have little doubt that black holes exist...am I correct?

 

[SSDD]

So you post an example of "Net energy" flow by using currency, then when it's pointed out that your example does not related to the topic..

IanC's example was about the nature of thermal equilibrium. Your example has nothing to do with thermal equilibrium. Frank, you and SSDD go up against people who know science. But you don't understand science. You have to be prepared to be wrong.

If you are including yourself among people who "know" science, you couldn't be more wrong...you clearly know unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable hypotheses...but alas, apparently have no idea that those things are not real...they do not relate to reality...they are fiction...and those models will change a hundred times or more as we gain knowledge and the means to actually begin to test them.

I asked ian just out of curiosity, and will ask you as well...I would wager that you have little doubt that black holes exist...am I correct?

 

[Wuwei]

If you are including yourself among people who "know" science, you couldn't be more wrong...you clearly know unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable hypotheses...but alas, apparently have no idea that those things are not real...they do not relate to reality...they are fiction...and those models will change a hundred times or more as we gain knowledge and the means to actually begin to test them.

Yes, yes, we already know you don't and will never believe the efficacy of models of modern physics even though they predict particle phenomena to parts per billion or trillion depending on experimental accuracy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you post an example of "Net energy" flow by using currency, then when it's pointed out that your example does not related to the topic..

IanC's example was about the nature of thermal equilibrium. Your example has nothing to do with thermal equilibrium. Frank, you and SSDD go up against people who know science. But you don't understand science. You have to be prepared to be wrong.

So you're saying that the lower energy (Pressure) can affect the higher (energy) pressure area and that there is a net exchange, That right? Even though the example makes a mockery of your logic are you standing by your net energy flow argument?

 

[IanC]

So you post an example of "Net energy" flow by using currency, then when it's pointed out that your example does not related to the topic..

IanC's example was about the nature of thermal equilibrium. Your example has nothing to do with thermal equilibrium. Frank, you and SSDD go up against people who know science. But you don't understand science. You have to be prepared to be wrong.

So you're saying that the lower energy (Pressure) can affect the higher (energy) pressure area and that there is a net exchange, That right? Even though the example makes a mockery of your logic are you standing by your net energy flow argument?

Your example is limited by the property of mass. Only one particle of mass can occupy one point of space at one time. Two particles of mass cannot pass through each other unchanged. Two photons can.

That is why matter moves in the direction of the the overwhelming net force. And why all radiation completes the journey from emitter to absorber unchanged.

 

[IanC]

I'm stepping off onto a tangent here, but I would wager that you have little doubt that black holes exist...am I correct?

I cannot see how that is a tangent. It is a totally different topic.

I am impressed that the Chandrasehkar Limit predicts neutron stars, and the further gravitational collapse into a black hole.

It makes a lot of sense but I don't think all the bugs are worked out. Gravitational lensing is a prediction that was later found. Pretty strong evidence that black holes exist even if we are unsure of some of the details.

 

[Wuwei]

So you're saying that the lower energy (Pressure) can affect the higher (energy) pressure area and that there is a net exchange, That right? Even though the example makes a mockery of your logic are you standing by your net energy flow argument?

You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you're saying that the lower energy (Pressure) can affect the higher (energy) pressure area and that there is a net exchange, That right? Even though the example makes a mockery of your logic are you standing by your net energy flow argument?

You will have to describe exactly what you are talking about. I have not said anything about tire pressure so I don't know what you are referring to.

You were one of the first people to hop on the Currency $ exchange as a great example of the net energy flow idea, correct?