Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[IanC]

If you like to keep the interior of your house at a nice 75F, which day would cost you more in heating bills? An outside temperature of 70F, 40F, or minus 20F? Why?

The cold heats the warm, but just as much when it colder -- or something, wait let me post the SB Equation to prove that cold heats warm

So you really are retarded then?

Obviously you have had all this explained to you before but you lack the brain power to understand it.

You're telling us that the cold is not moving through the open door to heat the house?

Now you're talking like 'cold' is a thing which is opposite to heat.

So no, there is no anti energy. Hot, warm, cool and cold are all relative descriptions of how much energy an object has.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Individual molecules don't have a "temperature". Temperature is a statistical property of a collection of molecules. In any collection of gas or liquid molecules at a given temperature, some will be moving more slowly, some more quickly.

That makes the SSDD/BillyBob theory even more peculiar. In their theory, the slower moving molecules in a hotter gas somehow know that their neighboring molecules are moving faster, and thus those slower molecules know they also need to reject the slightly lower energy photons. Or is it the other way, that emitter molecules know not to emit towards the slower individual molecules in a hotter gas? In any case, the molecules show intelligence on multiple levels.

Billy and SSDD need to quantify their new theory exactly. Specifically, is the intelligence with the emitter or receiver?

Does each emitter-molecule know not to emit if a receiver-mass of temperature warmer than the emitter-mass will be in the emission path at some point in the future?

Or does each receiver-molecule know not to receive if the receiver-mass is warmer than the emitter-mass which the photon came from?

We need to know if the actual photons are flying through space or not, at which point we can continue the discussion.

In any case, the molecules show intelligence on multiple levels.

SSDD's causality violating, all knowing, future seeing, smart photon theory is funny.
All created to back up his "no back radiation" theory.

So a bowling ball shows intelligence when it falls to the alley after being release, right?

Yes, the bowling ball shows more intelligence than SSDD's smart photon theory.

How does following their laws make them smart? Is the bowling ball smart for following the laws of gravity?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Individual molecules don't have a "temperature". Temperature is a statistical property of a collection of molecules. In any collection of gas or liquid molecules at a given temperature, some will be moving more slowly, some more quickly.

That makes the SSDD/BillyBob theory even more peculiar. In their theory, the slower moving molecules in a hotter gas somehow know that their neighboring molecules are moving faster, and thus those slower molecules know they also need to reject the slightly lower energy photons. Or is it the other way, that emitter molecules know not to emit towards the slower individual molecules in a hotter gas? In any case, the molecules show intelligence on multiple levels.

Billy and SSDD need to quantify their new theory exactly. Specifically, is the intelligence with the emitter or receiver?

Does each emitter-molecule know not to emit if a receiver-mass of temperature warmer than the emitter-mass will be in the emission path at some point in the future?

Or does each receiver-molecule know not to receive if the receiver-mass is warmer than the emitter-mass which the photon came from?

We need to know if the actual photons are flying through space or not, at which point we can continue the discussion.

In any case, the molecules show intelligence on multiple levels.

SSDD's causality violating, all knowing, future seeing, smart photon theory is funny.
All created to back up his "no back radiation" theory.

So a bowling ball shows intelligence when it falls to the alley after being release, right?

Yes, the bowling ball shows more intelligence than SSDD's smart photon theory.

How does following their laws make them smart? Is the bowling ball smart for following the laws of gravity?

You think there is a law that says a photon measures the temperature of surrounding matter and decides not to travel toward anything warmer?

Tell me more!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Individual molecules don't have a "temperature". Temperature is a statistical property of a collection of molecules. In any collection of gas or liquid molecules at a given temperature, some will be moving more slowly, some more quickly.

That makes the SSDD/BillyBob theory even more peculiar. In their theory, the slower moving molecules in a hotter gas somehow know that their neighboring molecules are moving faster, and thus those slower molecules know they also need to reject the slightly lower energy photons. Or is it the other way, that emitter molecules know not to emit towards the slower individual molecules in a hotter gas? In any case, the molecules show intelligence on multiple levels.

Billy and SSDD need to quantify their new theory exactly. Specifically, is the intelligence with the emitter or receiver?

Does each emitter-molecule know not to emit if a receiver-mass of temperature warmer than the emitter-mass will be in the emission path at some point in the future?

Or does each receiver-molecule know not to receive if the receiver-mass is warmer than the emitter-mass which the photon came from?

We need to know if the actual photons are flying through space or not, at which point we can continue the discussion.

In any case, the molecules show intelligence on multiple levels.

SSDD's causality violating, all knowing, future seeing, smart photon theory is funny.
All created to back up his "no back radiation" theory.

So a bowling ball shows intelligence when it falls to the alley after being release, right?

Yes, the bowling ball shows more intelligence than SSDD's smart photon theory.

How does following their laws make them smart? Is the bowling ball smart for following the laws of gravity?

You think there is a law that says a photon measures the temperature of surrounding matter and decides not to travel toward anything warmer?

Tell me more!!!

Does the bowling ball measure the gravity differential above and below it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In any case, the molecules show intelligence on multiple levels.

SSDD's causality violating, all knowing, future seeing, smart photon theory is funny.
All created to back up his "no back radiation" theory.

So a bowling ball shows intelligence when it falls to the alley after being release, right?

Yes, the bowling ball shows more intelligence than SSDD's smart photon theory.

How does following their laws make them smart? Is the bowling ball smart for following the laws of gravity?

You think there is a law that says a photon measures the temperature of surrounding matter and decides not to travel toward anything warmer?

Tell me more!!!

Does the bowling ball measure the gravity differential above and below it?

As soon as SSDD comes up with a smart bowling ball theory, I'll be happy to discuss.

Now about those smart photons..........

 

[mamooth]

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.

You realize that photon do not experience time so saying things like "predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance" has no meaning from the photon POV

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.

You realize that photon do not experience time so saying things like "predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance" has no meaning from the photon POV

You realize that photon do not experience time

Doesn't mean it can predict the future.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.

You realize that photon do not experience time so saying things like "predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance" has no meaning from the photon POV

You realize that photon do not experience time

Doesn't mean it can predict the future.

The "future" has no meaning to a photon! You keep trying to pin human constraints on almost imaginary particles. Should the photon have hurt feeling because you think it's not "Smart"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.

You realize that photon do not experience time so saying things like "predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance" has no meaning from the photon POV

You realize that photon do not experience time

Doesn't mean it can predict the future.

The "future" has no meaning to a photon! You keep trying to pin human constraints on almost imaginary particles. Should the photon have hurt feeling because you think it's not "Smart"?

The "future" has no meaning to a photon!

Is that how it knows the temperature of matter millions of years in the future? LOL!

You keep trying to pin human constraints on almost imaginary particles.

I would never pin a constraint on SSDD's brain.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.

You realize that photon do not experience time so saying things like "predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance" has no meaning from the photon POV

You realize that photon do not experience time

Doesn't mean it can predict the future.

The "future" has no meaning to a photon! You keep trying to pin human constraints on almost imaginary particles. Should the photon have hurt feeling because you think it's not "Smart"?

The "future" has no meaning to a photon!

Is that how it knows the temperature of matter millions of years in the future? LOL!

You keep trying to pin human constraints on almost imaginary particles.

I would never pin a constraint on SSDD's brain.

"I have no idea what you mean by 'the future'" -- a photon

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.

You realize that photon do not experience time so saying things like "predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance" has no meaning from the photon POV

You realize that photon do not experience time

Doesn't mean it can predict the future.

The "future" has no meaning to a photon! You keep trying to pin human constraints on almost imaginary particles. Should the photon have hurt feeling because you think it's not "Smart"?

The "future" has no meaning to a photon!

Is that how it knows the temperature of matter millions of years in the future? LOL!

You keep trying to pin human constraints on almost imaginary particles.

I would never pin a constraint on SSDD's brain.

"I have no idea what you mean by 'the future'" -- a photon

"Stop violating causality" Todd

 

[mamooth]

You realize that photon do not experience time so saying things like "predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance" has no meaning from the photon POV

Well that's one point, nothing has meaning for the photon, because it's not sentient.

However, it's not the photons that are smart in your universe. It's apparently the emitter molecules, and they do experience time. Unless you're saying the emitter molecules always emit, and the photons actively dodge the hotter matter. You and SSDD won't get specific, so nobody knows what you believe.

Now, the bowling ball reacts due to the factors directly touching it, such as the curvature of space-time in the space occupied by the bowling ball.

Everything in the universe acts the same way, only affected by factors that touch it. (I'm leaving out quantum effects operating at incredibly small distances).

The single exception? Your smart photons. SSDD won't say why only the photons get that exception. You seem to be saying that each individual photon constantly experiences the totality of all space and time. Those are some super duper magical photons.

 

[SSDD]

The towel is always cooler than the tower.

That's the problem with mind experiments...
.

Any time you put another object between a power source and the cooler environment a temperature gradient is formed. The towel must be cooler than the tower, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

And a cooler object can't make a warm object warmer according to the laws of thermodynamics either, but you sure have no problem barking up that tree.

Did you ever contact GSU about their errors?
You should post their response.

Did you contact them to ask if they have the first observation and measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature to support the story they told you which you have swallowed hook line and sinker. Or are you afraid to face the truth.. And just think of the victory you would enjoy IF they actually could provide such measurement to you.

But you won't ask because you know that no such measurements exist...its all just unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

 

[SSDD]

The towel is always cooler than the tower.

That's the problem with mind experiments...
.

Any time you put another object between a power source and the cooler environment a temperature gradient is formed. The towel must be cooler than the tower, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

And a cooler object can't make a warm object warmer according to the laws of thermodynamics either, but you sure have no problem barking up that tree.

Of course it can. Any time you replace the cold environment with an object of intermediary temperature, the warm object will lose energy less quickly.

There are two options. If the warm object has no additional heating source then it will cool less quickly, and be warmer at every interval than it would have been without the secondary object.

If the warm object does have a heating source then it will arrive at a higher equilibrium temperature because the secondary object has reduced the heat loss.

A house cools down slower, and warms up to a higher temperature when it has less exposure to the environment. Don't believe me? Try opening all the windows and doors in the dead of winter.

Cooling less quickly is not warming ian...cooling less quickly is cooling. And the towel is blocking convection...are you saying that CO2 is blocking convection? Can you show me a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one?

Trillions of dollars are at stake...people's lives are at stake...over that very claim...wouldn't you think that there would exist a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Wouldn't you think that a reasonable, rational, logical thinking human being would expect to see some evidence, beyond an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that there is such a link before accepting said link as fact?

 

[SSDD]

Are you measuring the same spot every time? It may be useful to also measure a spot lower down that will not be covered when you add the towel.

Speaking of measurements...do you have any actual observed, measured, quantified data, gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature that supports your phantasy physics? Any at all?

You're the one who wanted to do an experiment with your Fluke. I was just giving you pointers on how to do it without (ahem) being fooled by instrumentation.

And you are the one who is always spouting about what is happening everywhere and yet, you can't provided the first real world observation or measurement of it made with an instrument at ambient temperature...if it is happening at ambient temperature why do you suppose it can't be measured with instruments at ambient temperature?

Here is a pointer for you...till such time as you can show some demonstrable evidence that your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models are happening in reality...they are not real...they remain phantasy physics.

 

[SSDD]

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.

Idiot.... I didn't invent photons, nor did I invent the rules by which they exist... I didn't determine via an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that photons exist at every point along their path at the same time...but if you are going to believe they exist, and exist as science claims, then that is just how they are...they exist at every point along their path, from beginning to end at the same time. That statement has ramifications...sorry you can't accept them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The towel is always cooler than the tower.

That's the problem with mind experiments...
.

Any time you put another object between a power source and the cooler environment a temperature gradient is formed. The towel must be cooler than the tower, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

And a cooler object can't make a warm object warmer according to the laws of thermodynamics either, but you sure have no problem barking up that tree.

Did you ever contact GSU about their errors?
You should post their response.

Did you contact them to ask if they have the first observation and measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature to support the story they told you which you have swallowed hook line and sinker. Or are you afraid to face the truth.. And just think of the victory you would enjoy IF they actually could provide such measurement to you.

But you won't ask because you know that no such measurements exist...its all just unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

You're the only one to notice all our instruments are lying.
Spread the word!!
Let us know what GSU says. TIA!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The towel is always cooler than the tower.

That's the problem with mind experiments...
.

Any time you put another object between a power source and the cooler environment a temperature gradient is formed. The towel must be cooler than the tower, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

And a cooler object can't make a warm object warmer according to the laws of thermodynamics either, but you sure have no problem barking up that tree.

Of course it can. Any time you replace the cold environment with an object of intermediary temperature, the warm object will lose energy less quickly.

There are two options. If the warm object has no additional heating source then it will cool less quickly, and be warmer at every interval than it would have been without the secondary object.

If the warm object does have a heating source then it will arrive at a higher equilibrium temperature because the secondary object has reduced the heat loss.

A house cools down slower, and warms up to a higher temperature when it has less exposure to the environment. Don't believe me? Try opening all the windows and doors in the dead of winter.

Cooling less quickly is not warming ian...cooling less quickly is cooling. And the towel is blocking convection...are you saying that CO2 is blocking convection? Can you show me a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one?

Trillions of dollars are at stake...people's lives are at stake...over that very claim...wouldn't you think that there would exist a single measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Wouldn't you think that a reasonable, rational, logical thinking human being would expect to see some evidence, beyond an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that there is such a link before accepting said link as fact?

Cooling less quickly is not warming ian...cooling less quickly is cooling. And the towel is blocking convection...are you saying that CO2 is blocking convection?

CO2 is causing us to cool less quickly. (Because of back radiation)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does the bowling ball violate the laws of causality? Can it predict future events on the other side of the universe billions of years in advance?

No? Then it's not like SSDD's smart photons.

Idiot.... I didn't invent photons, nor did I invent the rules by which they exist... I didn't determine via an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that photons exist at every point along their path at the same time...but if you are going to believe they exist, and exist as science claims, then that is just how they are...they exist at every point along their path, from beginning to end at the same time. That statement has ramifications...sorry you can't accept them.

I didn't invent photons, nor did I invent the rules by which they exist

No, but you did invent all knowing, causality violating photons.