Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[SSDD]

Radiation is produced because of local internal conditions. To stop the production of radiation you have to change the local internal conditions.

And we all know ian...that internal conditions can be changed by altering external conditions.

 

[SSDD]

QM was discovered/invented because classical thermodynamics was insufficient to give correct answers that matched the experimental data.

So it is as I have been saying all along...QM is a set of stories that we tell ourselves about things which we lack the technology to understand...and will be subject to revision as we develop that technology. I won't be around in a hundred years, but if I were, I would willingly bet that if you compared QM then, to QM now, they would bear about as much resemblance to each other as medicine now contrasted with medicine during the Civil War period.

Stories are subject to change...repeatable, observed, measured, quantified data.....not so much.

 

[Wuwei]

So you don't know what the Copenhagen interpretation is...or why it is profound that he made such a snide comment about it...no surprise.

Everyone, including me many decades ago, learns about Bohr's work in their first course of quantum mechanics. Schroedinger's cat is now almost a household word. Entanglement is getting there, etc. That is why the mathematics is more important to people like Aronson than the "mysteries" of QM.

 

[Wuwei]

You don't seem to grasp that observed, and measured phenomena is science. Belief in the unseen and unknowable is faith.

Science is now about mathematical modeling of the observed phenomena. Mathematical models have predicted things that were unknown and lead to new observations and measurements for verification.

So you want me to share your faith in the unseen and unknowable...the unobservable, the untestable, and the unknowable... In a word...NO. Science is about knowledge...not faith.

If you want to disparage all science for the last 100 years, so be it.

 

[Wuwei]

So it is as I have been saying all along...QM is a set of stories that we tell ourselves about things which we lack the technology to understand..

Nope. Not stories. QM is about mathematical models.

 

[SSDD]

So you don't know what the Copenhagen interpretation is...or why it is profound that he made such a snide comment about it...no surprise.

Everyone, including me many decades ago, learns about Bohr's work in their first course of quantum mechanics. Schroedinger's cat is now almost a household word. Entanglement is getting there, etc. That is why the mathematics is more important to people like Aronson than the "mysteries" of QM.

So QM is now a mystery...it gets more religious all the time...

 

[SSDD]

Science is now about mathematical modeling of the observed phenomena. Mathematical models have predicted things that were unknown and lead to new observations and measurements for verification.

So then you are saying that you can show observed, measured instances of two way energy flow?

If you want to disparage all science for the last 100 years, so be it.

Calling faith science doesn't make it science...the word science means something...if an activity does not match the definition of the word being used to describe it, then the activity is being misnamed....

I disparage belief in models over observation, measurement, and repeatable experiment...that is not science...that is belief....in other words...faith.

 

[SSDD]

So it is as I have been saying all along...QM is a set of stories that we tell ourselves about things which we lack the technology to understand..

Nope. Not stories. QM is about mathematical models.

Call them whatever you like...they do not reflect any observable reality therefore they are stories....and subject to change as the story is slowly replaced with actual knowledge.

 

[Wuwei]

So QM is now a mystery...it gets more religious all the time...

It is for you.

 

[Wuwei]

Science is now about mathematical modeling of the observed phenomena. Mathematical models have predicted things that were unknown and lead to new observations and measurements for verification.

So then you are saying that you can show observed, measured instances of two way energy flow?

If you want to disparage all science for the last 100 years, so be it.

Calling faith science doesn't make it science...the word science means something...if an activity does not match the definition of the word being used to describe it, then the activity is being misnamed....

I disparage belief in models over observation, measurement, and repeatable experiment...that is not science...that is belief....in other words...faith.

Yes, yes, we all know you don't believe QM. You have said that many times.

 

[Wuwei]

So it is as I have been saying all along...QM is a set of stories that we tell ourselves about things which we lack the technology to understand..

Nope. Not stories. QM is about mathematical models.

Call them whatever you like...they do not reflect any observable reality therefore they are stories....and subject to change as the story is slowly replaced with actual knowledge.

You have illustrated you will never understand QM.

 

[IanC]

Radiation is produced because of local internal conditions. To stop the production of radiation you have to change the local internal conditions.

And we all know ian...that internal conditions can be changed by altering external conditions.

Radiation is created, must be created, by a physical process related to internal conditions and the available energy that can be converted to radiation. Energy is shed by the radiation produced and the object cools.

If there is a nearby warm object, it is also producing radiation in an attempt to cool.

The radiation from one object is absorbed by the other, adding to the available energy that can be converted to radiation. Both objects are cooling less quickly than they would have if the other was not present.

SSDD has a different theory. He says there is a different physical process that kicks in when two warm objects are in the same vicinity. He says this this unknown mechanism prohibits the original process and stops the production of radiation, except for any inbalance due to a temperature gradient.

For two objects at the same temperature no radiation is produced. Apparently they both still move but that movement no longer produces radiation. Weird.

And without radiation being produced to pass information along about the objects's temperature, how do they know whether to radiate? Unknowable apparently, all part and parcel of this new mechanism that nobody knows about except SSDD.

And what about the entropy that is no longer increasing? Apparently that doesn't matter to him. He just handwaves that away like he does with so many criticisms and contradictions that arise from his bizarre theories.

 

[Wuwei]

Apparently that doesn't matter to him. He just handwaves that away like he does with so many criticisms and contradictions that arise from his bizarre theories.

Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects? It is hard to pin him down because he always digresses, or buries it in cursing, or says that science doesn't understand QM, etc.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Apparently that doesn't matter to him. He just handwaves that away like he does with so many criticisms and contradictions that arise from his bizarre theories.

Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects? It is hard to pin him down because he always digresses, or buries it in cursing, or says that science doesn't understand QM, etc.

Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects?

Because the S-B equation. And the 2nd Law.

It was the inevitable outgrowth of his claim that there is no back radiation.

 

[Wuwei]

Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects?

Because the S-B equation. And the 2nd Law.

It was the inevitable outgrowth of his claim that there is no back radiation.

I understand that, but I was referring to deeper concepts. Has he said why sunlight can get past the hotter corona? or why atomic vibrations do not emit EM waves toward a hotter object? His explanation on the CMB was a totally trollish fantasy.

He goes bonkers when you mention smart photons, but has no deeper concept. Then he also seemingly says the opposite and tacitly acknowledges dual emission but says that the photons cancel, which as we know is not possible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Has he ever said why he does not believe radiation exchange between objects?

Because the S-B equation. And the 2nd Law.

It was the inevitable outgrowth of his claim that there is no back radiation.

I understand that, but I was referring to deeper concepts. Has he said why sunlight can get past the hotter corona? or why atomic vibrations do not emit EM waves toward a hotter object? His explanation on the CMB was a totally trollish fantasy.

He goes bonkers when you mention smart photons, but has no deeper concept. Then he also seemingly says the opposite and tacitly acknowledges dual emission but says that the photons cancel, which as we know is not possible.

Has he said why sunlight can get past the hotter corona?

He has said because that's not spontaneous, but never explains what that he means by that.

or why atomic vibrations do not emit EM waves toward a hotter object?

Not allowed.....because 2nd Law. But you're right, he never goes deeper.
Or provides links backing his claims.
I think he finally learned his lesson there....every link disagreed with his claims, at least as much as it agreed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.

Well, there you go. You don't know what emissivity means. Emissivity is nothing more than a statement about an entities ability to radiate energy...it has noting to do with "using" energy. You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to absorb. Period.

Emmisivity is the description of how effective the substance is at using the available energy. Emmisivity describes how a substance either absorbs, transmits or reflects radiation.

Well, there you go. You don't know what emissivity means. Emissivity is nothing more than a statement about an entities ability to radiate energy...it has noting to do with "using" energy. You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to emit. Period.

You increase emissivity, you increase the amount of energy the entity is able to absorb. Period.

The fallacy here is the assumption, that because the energy is absorbed, that it is used or warms anything.. In the Case of CO2, it can't retain photon energy and there is a zero physical change in the molecule before that energy is almost instantaneously re-emitted.

 

[SSDD]

So QM is now a mystery...it gets more religious all the time...

It is for you.

It is for science as well...it is 100 years on since Copenhagen and there is still not an agreement on what the Copenhagen interpretation even means...that is, by definition, a mystery.

 

[SSDD]

Science is now about mathematical modeling of the observed phenomena. Mathematical models have predicted things that were unknown and lead to new observations and measurements for verification.

So then you are saying that you can show observed, measured instances of two way energy flow?

If you want to disparage all science for the last 100 years, so be it.

Calling faith science doesn't make it science...the word science means something...if an activity does not match the definition of the word being used to describe it, then the activity is being misnamed....

I disparage belief in models over observation, measurement, and repeatable experiment...that is not science...that is belief....in other words...faith.

Yes, yes, we all know you don't believe QM. You have said that many times.

Can't bring yourself to admit to reality...the answer is no...you can not show any actual measured evidence of two way energy flow...is that so difficult?

 

[SSDD]

So it is as I have been saying all along...QM is a set of stories that we tell ourselves about things which we lack the technology to understand..

Nope. Not stories. QM is about mathematical models.

Call them whatever you like...they do not reflect any observable reality therefore they are stories....and subject to change as the story is slowly replaced with actual knowledge.

You have illustrated you will never understand QM.

And you believe that you do?

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Dr Richard Feynman

My own conclusion is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws. This view is not universally shared. Indeed, many physicists are satisfied with their own interpretation of quantum mechanics. But different physicists are satisfied with different interpretations. In my view, we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is only a good approximation. Steven Weinberg,