how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[SSDD]

Ssdd=troll

He's either a near professional troll or the slowest among us by a mile. You're probably just trying to give him a break by using the troll alternative.

You guys enjoying your little circle jerk? Prove two way energy flow or admit that you can't. May as well admit that you can't since we (or at least i) know that there is no such proof.

 

[itfitzme]

I know a whole lot about frequency and amplitude.

Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't keep asking the question....but is fun to watch you pretend to know and try to compare apples to watermelons.

I asked a simple question. How do cold transmission antennas broadcast to warm receiving antennas? You have no answer because your kiddie version of the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics says that they can't. Empirically wrong. Proof that you have no idea what your talking about.

Gee, who's surprised?

Another would be the simple experiment originall done to connect work to thermal energy, the paddle wheel in an insolated bath. There is no restriction, with the exception of the level of insulation that can be achieved, to the amount of energy that can be introduced through mechanical work.

 

[PMZ]

Ssdd=troll

He's either a near professional troll or the slowest among us by a mile. You're probably just trying to give him a break by using the troll alternative.

You guys enjoying your little circle jerk? Prove two way energy flow or admit that you can't. May as well admit that you can't since we (or at least i) know that there is no such proof.

Where does this idea come from that people who understand science owe people who don't, anything at all?

If you are unable or unwilling to invest in whatever education that you need to catch up to current climate science that is entirely your problem. It has nothing to do with us, science, attaining the energy future, nothing at all.

You've said, 'I have chosen irrelevance'.

Fine with me.

 

[itfitzme]

Ssdd=troll

He's either a near professional troll or the slowest among us by a mile. You're probably just trying to give him a break by using the troll alternative.

You guys enjoying your little circle jerk? Prove two way energy flow or admit that you can't. May as well admit that you can't since we (or at least i) know that there is no such proof.

Prove one way energy flow. Prove conservation of energy and momentum. Prove the second law of thermo.

You can't because there is no laboratory experiement that "proves" them. The only proof is a statistical demonstration and deductive reasoning. And those lead to Brownian motion, the existance of the molecule and atom, and the statistical nature of thermodynamics.

And I can guarantee that you haven't a clue how to derive kinetic energy and momentum from Newton's laws of mechanics.

 

[itfitzme]

This entire Second Law 'discussion' is a diversion, just as was the 'discussion' on quantum mechanics.

Climate sensitivity calculations need to take into account the total increase in global heat content: atmosphere, land surface and the entire depth of the ocean. Doing so indicates the only change in heat accumulation rate lately has been upward. The best estimate of climate sensitivity is still ~3C/doubling.

Yeah, but it leads to some interesting things. I was going over Newtons derivations,

Work = Energy = F*Δd=∫F*dx

and

I = Impulse = Momentum = F*Δt =∫F*dt

From these, the concervation of energy and momentum are deductively proven.

Work = Energy = F*Δd=∫F*dx leads to

=∫ma*dx

= m∫(d²x/dt²)*dx

= m∫(dv/dt)*dx

Then the amazing part, he switches dx and dv

= m∫(dx/dt)*dt

= m∫v*dt

= m (1/2) v²

For momentum it is

=∫ma*dt

= m∫(d²x/dt²)*dt

= m∫(dv/dt)*dt

Then the amazing part, he switches dt and dv

= m∫(dt/dt)*dv

= m∫(1)dt

= m v

Because two colliding particles impart equal and opposite force on each other, and the time and distance for the interaction is the same, the conservation of force and energy is clear.

The rest is simply a statistically significant number of times that it has never failed to be true. But, it was some time, as new forms of energy were discovered, before this was taken as being a fundamental law beyond Newtonian mechanics. That E=hv and p=h/λ were not immediately considered as conserved until it was demonstrated as statistically significant.

 

[itfitzme]

Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't keep asking the question....but is fun to watch you pretend to know and try to compare apples to watermelons.

I asked a simple question. How do cold transmission antennas broadcast to warm receiving antennas? You have no answer because your kiddie version of the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics says that they can't. Empirically wrong. Proof that you have no idea what your talking about.

Gee, who's surprised?

I have told you repeatedly that if you take the time to learn about frequency and amplitude, and how they are slaves to the second law as well, you would not need to keep asking such a stupid question. Clearly you are under the impression that heat is the only form of energy. If you actually understand frequency and amplitude as you claim, and grasp how the second law governs them, then why do you keep asking such a stupid and pointless question?

What the F are you talking about? You couldn't list the forms of energy without looking it up on wikipedia and have no clue what your talking about with your frequency and amplitude bs.

 

[itfitzme]

This entire Second Law 'discussion' is a diversion, just as was the 'discussion' on quantum mechanics.

Climate sensitivity calculations need to take into account the total increase in global heat content: atmosphere, land surface and the entire depth of the ocean. Doing so indicates the only change in heat accumulation rate lately has been upward. The best estimate of climate sensitivity is still ~3C/doubling.

As far as the second law is concerned, there is no conservation of entropy and it is, by itself, a fairly useless concept except to say that there are no perfectly elastic collisions.

The significant law is the first law, the conservation of energy, and the concept of enthalpy which is an accouting of the actual energy in a system.

There are

dU = dQ - dW = T*dS - dW

dG = dH - T dS

dH = dE - d(PV)

The important part is the energy available. All the second law says is that, for a mass system, some energy will leak out into other available modes.

Unlike energy and momentum, entropy is not conserved, making it a far less useful measure. Like energy and momentum, every time a new form of energy was revealed, it took time before the second law was considered to be of some relevance. The fact is that, at a moleculer level, it has no value. It only has meaning at a mass level. At best, at a molecular level, it says that if a molecule can absorb a photon into any one of a number of modes, it will absorb them into any one of a number of modes. That is all it says, nothing more.

 

[SSDD]

He's either a near professional troll or the slowest among us by a mile. You're probably just trying to give him a break by using the troll alternative.

You guys enjoying your little circle jerk? Prove two way energy flow or admit that you can't. May as well admit that you can't since we (or at least i) know that there is no such proof.

Where does this idea come from that people who understand science owe people who don't, anything at all?

If you are unable or unwilling to invest in whatever education that you need to catch up to current climate science that is entirely your problem. It has nothing to do with us, science, attaining the energy future, nothing at all.

You've said, 'I have chosen irrelevance'.

Fine with me.

Nothing like proof to support your claims. Why am I not surprised. Unable to win your point so to claim I am stupid? If you think I am stupid and I have you backed into a corner you can't defend, how much more stupid does that make you?

You can't prove your claims and aren't even grown up enough to acknowledge it.

 

[SSDD]

This entire Second Law 'discussion' is a diversion, just as was the 'discussion' on quantum mechanics.

Climate sensitivity calculations need to take into account the total increase in global heat content: atmosphere, land surface and the entire depth of the ocean. Doing so indicates the only change in heat accumulation rate lately has been upward. The best estimate of climate sensitivity is still ~3C/doubling.

As far as the second law is concerned, there is no conservation of entropy and it is, by itself, a fairly useless concept except to say that there are no perfectly elastic collisions.

The significant law is the first law, the conservation of energy, and the concept of enthalpy which is an accouting of the actual energy in a system.

There are

dU = dQ - dW = T*dS - dW

dG = dH - T dS

dH = dE - d(PV)

The important part is the energy available. All the second law says is that, for a mass system, some energy will leak out into other available modes.

Unlike energy and momentum, entropy is not conserved, making it a far less useful measure. Like energy and momentum, every time a new form of energy was revealed, it took time before the second law was considered to be of some relevance. The fact is that, at a moleculer level, it has no value. It only has meaning at a mass level. At best, at a molecular level, it says that if a molecule can absorb a photon into any one of a number of modes, it will absorb them into any one of a number of modes. That is all it says, nothing more.

Do you ever get tired of talking yo yourself?

 

[PMZ]

You guys enjoying your little circle jerk? Prove two way energy flow or admit that you can't. May as well admit that you can't since we (or at least i) know that there is no such proof.

Where does this idea come from that people who understand science owe people who don't, anything at all?

If you are unable or unwilling to invest in whatever education that you need to catch up to current climate science that is entirely your problem. It has nothing to do with us, science, attaining the energy future, nothing at all.

You've said, 'I have chosen irrelevance'.

Fine with me.

Nothing like proof to support your claims. Why am I not surprised. Unable to win your point so to claim I am stupid? If you think I am stupid and I have you backed into a corner you can't defend, how much more stupid does that make you?

You can't prove your claims and aren't even grown up enough to acknowledge it.

My claims are accepted by science as givens. That is equally true whether or not you know or accept it. You can't just declare that because you don't know something that it can't be true. That’s by definition Dunning-Kruger.

If you want to learn, consider a two way radio antenna. Your ignorance says that that can't be. Our knowledge says that it happens every second of every day. You say that your ignorance deserves equal consideration to our knowledge.

No.

 

[SSDD]

My claims are accepted by science as givens. That is equally true whether or not you know or accept it. You can't just declare that because you don't know something that it can't be true. That’s by definition Dunning-Kruger.

One of the problems with having a pretend education such as yours is that your own biases limit it to what you want to believe. You are obviously unaware of the fact that two way net energy flow is not taught as fact if you are in a hard science program such as physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc. The theory is discussed, but ideas such as backradiation which is dependent on two way energy flow are not taught. Such ideas are mostly restricted to climatolgy...a soft science. Two way net flow of energy is one feature of a hyopothesis that has not, nor is likely to ever be proven. Anyone who accepts such as a given, is quite frankly, stupid. History won't be kind to post modern science which is profoundly guilty of skipping over the scientific method and accepting theory as fact.

And your idiot reference to dunning kruger is a fine example of how your pretend education fails you. I am the first to admit to things I don't know. In fact, I have said repeatedly that I can't begin to explain the mechanism that forces energy transfers in one direction but believe that to be the case anyway because it is what the second law of thermodynamics says. By your own definition, I do not fit the profile for dunning-kruger. You, on the other hand do. You chose to believe theory is fact and disregard physical law in favor of what you choose to believe.

you want to learn, consider a two way radio antenna. Your ignorance says that that can't be. Our knowledge says that it happens every second of every day. You say that your ignorance deserves equal consideration to our knowledge.

No.

I don't guess you are aware that electromagnetic waves are also forms of energy and are also slaves to the second law just like heat. Your pretend education has failed you again. Again, do a bit of reading on the topics of frequency and amplitude and how the second law applies to them just as it applies to all energy transfers.

You grasped the idea from a tongue in cheek comment by flacalten. Clearly he does grasp electromagnetism as he dropped the whole topic when I mentioned frequency and amplitude to him. He knows that his comment was half assed and didn't persue it. Being barely half assed yourself, you think you are on to something and continue to make a fool of yourself in public with it. I encourage you to continue.

 

[PMZ]

My claims are accepted by science as givens. That is equally true whether or not you know or accept it. You can't just declare that because you don't know something that it can't be true. That’s by definition Dunning-Kruger.

One of the problems with having a pretend education such as yours is that your own biases limit it to what you want to believe. You are obviously unaware of the fact that two way net energy flow is not taught as fact if you are in a hard science program such as physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc. The theory is discussed, but ideas such as backradiation which is dependent on two way energy flow are not taught. Such ideas are mostly restricted to climatolgy...a soft science. Two way net flow of energy is one feature of a hyopothesis that has not, nor is likely to ever be proven. Anyone who accepts such as a given, is quite frankly, stupid. History won't be kind to post modern science which is profoundly guilty of skipping over the scientific method and accepting theory as fact.

And your idiot reference to dunning kruger is a fine example of how your pretend education fails you. I am the first to admit to things I don't know. In fact, I have said repeatedly that I can't begin to explain the mechanism that forces energy transfers in one direction but believe that to be the case anyway because it is what the second law of thermodynamics says. By your own definition, I do not fit the profile for dunning-kruger. You, on the other hand do. You chose to believe theory is fact and disregard physical law in favor of what you choose to believe.

you want to learn, consider a two way radio antenna. Your ignorance says that that can't be. Our knowledge says that it happens every second of every day. You say that your ignorance deserves equal consideration to our knowledge.

No.

I don't guess you are aware that electromagnetic waves are also forms of energy and are also slaves to the second law just like heat. Your pretend education has failed you again. Again, do a bit of reading on the topics of frequency and amplitude and how the second law applies to them just as it applies to all energy transfers.

You grasped the idea from a tongue in cheek comment by flacalten. Clearly he does grasp electromagnetism as he dropped the whole topic when I mentioned frequency and amplitude to him. He knows that his comment was half assed and didn't persue it. Being barely half assed yourself, you think you are on to something and continue to make a fool of yourself in public with it. I encourage you to continue.

Nothing pretend about my education. I worked hard at it.

Your remarks about how the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics prevents two way RF communications antennas from working speak for themselves. You apparently have again avoided learning anything.

That is precisely Dunning-Kruger.

 

[mamooth]

You are obviously unaware of the fact that two way net energy flow is not taught as fact if you are in a hard science program such as physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.

Dang. I must have imagined that semester of Statistical Mechanics. Or is that "soft science" now? Given it was part of the core Physics curriculum, one would think it was hard science.

(I think I got a "B" in it.)

 

[PMZ]

Education is not something that conservatives value. It is so much easier to be ignorant and so much easier to believe we are all helpless victims than responsible achievers.

 

[itfitzme]

This entire Second Law 'discussion' is a diversion, just as was the 'discussion' on quantum mechanics.

Climate sensitivity calculations need to take into account the total increase in global heat content: atmosphere, land surface and the entire depth of the ocean. Doing so indicates the only change in heat accumulation rate lately has been upward. The best estimate of climate sensitivity is still ~3C/doubling.

As far as the second law is concerned, there is no conservation of entropy and it is, by itself, a fairly useless concept except to say that there are no perfectly elastic collisions.

The significant law is the first law, the conservation of energy, and the concept of enthalpy which is an accouting of the actual energy in a system.

There are

dU = dQ - dW = T*dS - dW

dG = dH - T dS

dH = dE - d(PV)

The important part is the energy available. All the second law says is that, for a mass system, some energy will leak out into other available modes.

Unlike energy and momentum, entropy is not conserved, making it a far less useful measure. Like energy and momentum, every time a new form of energy was revealed, it took time before the second law was considered to be of some relevance. The fact is that, at a moleculer level, it has no value. It only has meaning at a mass level. At best, at a molecular level, it says that if a molecule can absorb a photon into any one of a number of modes, it will absorb them into any one of a number of modes. That is all it says, nothing more.

Do you ever get tired of talking yo yourself?

Your to fin stupid to talk to.

 

[itfitzme]

You are obviously unaware of the fact that two way net energy flow is not taught as fact if you are in a hard science program such as physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.

Dang. I must have imagined that semester of Statistical Mechanics. Or is that "soft science" now? Given it was part of the core Physics curriculum, one would think it was hard science.

(I think I got a "B" in it.)

The guy obviously has no education, so he makes up shit, pretending that he knows what is taught in physics.

 

[itfitzme]

My claims are accepted by science as givens. That is equally true whether or not you know or accept it. You can't just declare that because you don't know something that it can't be true. That’s by definition Dunning-Kruger.

One of the problems with having a pretend education such as yours is that your own biases limit it to what you want to believe. You are obviously unaware of the fact that two way net energy flow is not taught as fact if you are in a hard science program such as physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc. The theory is discussed, but ideas such as backradiation which is dependent on two way energy flow are not taught. Such ideas are mostly restricted to climatolgy...a soft science. Two way net flow of energy is one feature of a hyopothesis that has not, nor is likely to ever be proven. Anyone who accepts such as a given, is quite frankly, stupid. History won't be kind to post modern science which is profoundly guilty of skipping over the scientific method and accepting theory as fact.

And your idiot reference to dunning kruger is a fine example of how your pretend education fails you. I am the first to admit to things I don't know. In fact, I have said repeatedly that I can't begin to explain the mechanism that forces energy transfers in one direction but believe that to be the case anyway because it is what the second law of thermodynamics says. By your own definition, I do not fit the profile for dunning-kruger. You, on the other hand do. You chose to believe theory is fact and disregard physical law in favor of what you choose to believe.

you want to learn, consider a two way radio antenna. Your ignorance says that that can't be. Our knowledge says that it happens every second of every day. You say that your ignorance deserves equal consideration to our knowledge.

No.

I don't guess you are aware that electromagnetic waves are also forms of energy and are also slaves to the second law just like heat. Your pretend education has failed you again. Again, do a bit of reading on the topics of frequency and amplitude and how the second law applies to them just as it applies to all energy transfers.

You grasped the idea from a tongue in cheek comment by flacalten. Clearly he does grasp electromagnetism as he dropped the whole topic when I mentioned frequency and amplitude to him. He knows that his comment was half assed and didn't persue it. Being barely half assed yourself, you think you are on to something and continue to make a fool of yourself in public with it. I encourage you to continue.

There is no mechanism that forces energy transfer in one direction. That's your problem, you keep harping on this magical concept of yours for which you have no evidence. It demonstrates your lack of education in physics and engineering. You can't list the forms of energy. You can't do the calculations necessary to show how the forms of energy are related. You don't even know what energy is. Your making up your own bs with nothing to back it up.

 

[PMZ]

My claims are accepted by science as givens. That is equally true whether or not you know or accept it. You can't just declare that because you don't know something that it can't be true. That’s by definition Dunning-Kruger.

One of the problems with having a pretend education such as yours is that your own biases limit it to what you want to believe. You are obviously unaware of the fact that two way net energy flow is not taught as fact if you are in a hard science program such as physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc. The theory is discussed, but ideas such as backradiation which is dependent on two way energy flow are not taught. Such ideas are mostly restricted to climatolgy...a soft science. Two way net flow of energy is one feature of a hyopothesis that has not, nor is likely to ever be proven. Anyone who accepts such as a given, is quite frankly, stupid. History won't be kind to post modern science which is profoundly guilty of skipping over the scientific method and accepting theory as fact.

And your idiot reference to dunning kruger is a fine example of how your pretend education fails you. I am the first to admit to things I don't know. In fact, I have said repeatedly that I can't begin to explain the mechanism that forces energy transfers in one direction but believe that to be the case anyway because it is what the second law of thermodynamics says. By your own definition, I do not fit the profile for dunning-kruger. You, on the other hand do. You chose to believe theory is fact and disregard physical law in favor of what you choose to believe.

you want to learn, consider a two way radio antenna. Your ignorance says that that can't be. Our knowledge says that it happens every second of every day. You say that your ignorance deserves equal consideration to our knowledge.

No.

I don't guess you are aware that electromagnetic waves are also forms of energy and are also slaves to the second law just like heat. Your pretend education has failed you again. Again, do a bit of reading on the topics of frequency and amplitude and how the second law applies to them just as it applies to all energy transfers.

You grasped the idea from a tongue in cheek comment by flacalten. Clearly he does grasp electromagnetism as he dropped the whole topic when I mentioned frequency and amplitude to him. He knows that his comment was half assed and didn't persue it. Being barely half assed yourself, you think you are on to something and continue to make a fool of yourself in public with it. I encourage you to continue.

There is no mechanism that forces energy transfer in one direction. That's your problem, you keep harping on this magical concept of yours for which you have no evidence. It demonstrates your lack of education in physics and engineering. You can't list the forms of energy. You can't do the calculations necessary to show how the forms of energy are related. You don't even know what energy is. Your making up your own bs with nothing to back it up.

As far as I know there is no proof that the transfer of molecular kinetic energy doesn't always go from high to low as conduction.

 

[itfitzme]

One of the problems with having a pretend education such as yours is that your own biases limit it to what you want to believe. You are obviously unaware of the fact that two way net energy flow is not taught as fact if you are in a hard science program such as physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc. The theory is discussed, but ideas such as backradiation which is dependent on two way energy flow are not taught. Such ideas are mostly restricted to climatolgy...a soft science. Two way net flow of energy is one feature of a hyopothesis that has not, nor is likely to ever be proven. Anyone who accepts such as a given, is quite frankly, stupid. History won't be kind to post modern science which is profoundly guilty of skipping over the scientific method and accepting theory as fact.

And your idiot reference to dunning kruger is a fine example of how your pretend education fails you. I am the first to admit to things I don't know. In fact, I have said repeatedly that I can't begin to explain the mechanism that forces energy transfers in one direction but believe that to be the case anyway because it is what the second law of thermodynamics says. By your own definition, I do not fit the profile for dunning-kruger. You, on the other hand do. You chose to believe theory is fact and disregard physical law in favor of what you choose to believe.



I don't guess you are aware that electromagnetic waves are also forms of energy and are also slaves to the second law just like heat. Your pretend education has failed you again. Again, do a bit of reading on the topics of frequency and amplitude and how the second law applies to them just as it applies to all energy transfers.

You grasped the idea from a tongue in cheek comment by flacalten. Clearly he does grasp electromagnetism as he dropped the whole topic when I mentioned frequency and amplitude to him. He knows that his comment was half assed and didn't persue it. Being barely half assed yourself, you think you are on to something and continue to make a fool of yourself in public with it. I encourage you to continue.

There is no mechanism that forces energy transfer in one direction. That's your problem, you keep harping on this magical concept of yours for which you have no evidence. It demonstrates your lack of education in physics and engineering. You can't list the forms of energy. You can't do the calculations necessary to show how the forms of energy are related. You don't even know what energy is. Your making up your own bs with nothing to back it up.

As far as I know there is no proof that the transfer of molecular kinetic energy doesn't always go from high to low as conduction.

And there is proof that kinetic energy moves in both directions.

It is called Brownian motion. I know I keep harping on it, but it is the definitive experiment and observation that proves a) the existance of molecules and atoms, b) the statistical nature of classical thermodynamics, and c) that the kinetic energy does move from the low concentration to the high concentation, just less often.

"At first the predictions of Einstein's formula were seemingly refuted by a series of experiments by Svedberg in 1906 and 1907, which gave displacements of the particles as 4 to 6 times the predicted value, and by Henri in 1908 who found displacements 3 times greater than Einstein's formula predicted.[11] But Einstein's predictions were finally confirmed in a series of experiments carried out by Chaudesaigues in 1908 and Perrin in 1909. The confirmation of Einstein's theory constituted empirical progress for the kinetic theory of heat. In essence, Einstein showed that the motion can be predicted directly from the kinetic model of thermal equilibrium. The importance of the theory lay in the fact that it confirmed the kinetic theory's account of the second law of thermodynamics as being an essentially statistical law."

Brownian motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The paper is available at users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/eins_brownian.pdf*

This google search will provide a wealth of reading material,

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=einstein+brownian+motion

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=How+does+einstein+brownian+motion+and+heat+effect&spell=1

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=How+does+einstein+brownian+motion+and+heat

COS 126 Programming Assignment: The Atomic Nature of Matter

"In one of his "miraculous year" (1905) papers, Einstein formulated a quantitative theory of Brownian motion in an attempt to justify the "existence of atoms of definite finite size." His theory provided experimentalists with a method to count molecules with an ordinary microscope by observing their collective effect on a larger immersed particle. In 1908 Jean Baptiste Perrin used the recently invented ultramicroscope to experimentally validate Einstein's kinetic theory of Brownian motion, thereby providing the first direct evidence supporting the atomic nature of matter. For this work, Perrin won the 1926 Nobel Prize in physics. "

The bottom line of it is this. Grains of pollen are just the right size that they are visible under the microscope and small enough to be significantly impacted by the difference in momentum and kinetic energy of the individual molecules. Under a microscope, pollen grains or materal beads of sufficient size can be seen and counted as they move in random directions due to the random movement of the molecules. When they are introduced into the liquid, all at one end, they will tend towards being evenly distributed throughout the liquid. But, at any particular moment of time, a statistically calculatable quantity of beads can be seen moving in the opposite direction, in the direction of higher concentration.

This alone is sufficient to prove that statistical mechanics is correct and that classical mechanics is the result of the statistical properties of large number of atoms. And, it proves that energy does move against the temperature gradient, just not en mass.

The reason it proves it is simple. The proof of molecules and atoms proves it. The proof of atoms and molecules makes the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules sufficient to explain heat transfer. Being sufficient to explain heat transfer, having buries the caloric idea, then the gross movement of kinetic energy in opposition to the thermal gradient is proven.

One of the things with physics, and why some with never get it, is some things are understood well enough that further investigation is simply unnecessary. One could extend the brownina motion experiment to a thermal gradient experiement, but why bother?

No one with a physics education is stupid enough to think like SSDD. We all know. That he thinks otherwise is sufficient evidence to prove he doesn't have an education in engineering or physics.

 

[PMZ]

There is no mechanism that forces energy transfer in one direction. That's your problem, you keep harping on this magical concept of yours for which you have no evidence. It demonstrates your lack of education in physics and engineering. You can't list the forms of energy. You can't do the calculations necessary to show how the forms of energy are related. You don't even know what energy is. Your making up your own bs with nothing to back it up.

As far as I know there is no proof that the transfer of molecular kinetic energy doesn't always go from high to low as conduction.

And there is proof that kinetic energy moves in both directions.

It is called Brownian motion. I know I keep harping on it, but it is the definitive experiment and observation that proves a) the existance of molecules and atoms, b) the statistical nature of classical thermodynamics, and c) that the kinetic energy does move from the low concentration to the high concentation, just less often.

"At first the predictions of Einstein's formula were seemingly refuted by a series of experiments by Svedberg in 1906 and 1907, which gave displacements of the particles as 4 to 6 times the predicted value, and by Henri in 1908 who found displacements 3 times greater than Einstein's formula predicted.[11] But Einstein's predictions were finally confirmed in a series of experiments carried out by Chaudesaigues in 1908 and Perrin in 1909. The confirmation of Einstein's theory constituted empirical progress for the kinetic theory of heat. In essence, Einstein showed that the motion can be predicted directly from the kinetic model of thermal equilibrium. The importance of the theory lay in the fact that it confirmed the kinetic theory's account of the second law of thermodynamics as being an essentially statistical law."

Brownian motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The paper is available at users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/eins_brownian.pdf*

This google search will provide a wealth of reading material,

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=einstein+brownian+motion

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=How+does+einstein+brownian+motion+and+heat+effect&spell=1

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=How+does+einstein+brownian+motion+and+heat

COS 126 Programming Assignment: The Atomic Nature of Matter

"In one of his "miraculous year" (1905) papers, Einstein formulated a quantitative theory of Brownian motion in an attempt to justify the "existence of atoms of definite finite size." His theory provided experimentalists with a method to count molecules with an ordinary microscope by observing their collective effect on a larger immersed particle. In 1908 Jean Baptiste Perrin used the recently invented ultramicroscope to experimentally validate Einstein's kinetic theory of Brownian motion, thereby providing the first direct evidence supporting the atomic nature of matter. For this work, Perrin won the 1926 Nobel Prize in physics. "

The bottom line of it is this. Grains of pollen are just the right size that they are visible under the microscope and small enough to be significantly impacted by the difference in momentum and kinetic energy of the individual molecules. Under a microscope, pollen grains or materal beads of sufficient size can be seen and counted as they move in random directions due to the random movement of the molecules. When they are introduced into the liquid, all at one end, they will tend towards being evenly distributed throughout the liquid. But, at any particular moment of time, a statistically calculatable quantity of beads can be seen moving in the opposite direction, in the direction of higher concentration.

This alone is sufficient to prove that statistical mechanics is correct and that classical mechanics is the result of the statistical properties of large number of atoms. And, it proves that energy does move against the temperature gradient, just not en mass.

The reason it proves it is simple. The proof of molecules and atoms proves it. The proof of atoms and molecules makes the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules sufficient to explain heat transfer. Being sufficient to explain heat transfer, having buries the caloric idea, then the gross movement of kinetic energy in opposition to the thermal gradient is proven.

One of the things with physics, and why some with never get it, is some things are understood well enough that further investigation is simply unnecessary. One could extend the brownina motion experiment to a thermal gradient experiement, but why bother?

No one with a physics education is stupid enough to think like SSDD. We all know. That he thinks otherwise is sufficient evidence to prove he doesn't have an education in engineering or physics.

Certainly the statistical evidence suggests that within any sample there will be a range of kinetic energies amoung the molecules. My point is at the scale of a single molecule. Can a lower kinetic energy molecule transfer energy to a higher energy molecule. No statistics required.