Latest AGW Guess

[SSDD]

Another thought experiment:

I have two balls. One is 50C, the other is 100C. They are separated by a flat barrier that is kept at 0C. This barrier has a hole in it. The hole is not on the line between the two balls; the balls cannot "see" each other through the holes. The environment around the entire affair is at 25C (room temperature)

Let's look at the 50C ball. It radiates towards the cold, 0C barrier. It even radiates towards the hole through which it sees its 25C surroundings. But what happens to the IR waves when they get to the hole. If you go look up refraction in any physics textbook, you will find that the waves will depart the hole as if they were coming from a point radiator. The infrared will spread evenly throughout the 180 degrees available on the other side of the cold barrier. That means that IR will strike the hotter, 100C ball. You can say it was coming from the 50C ball or the 0C barrier, but in either case, it is coming from a colder object to a warmer object.

If your claims had any substance...you could show an actual experiment, and observation, and measurement demonstrating your theory....we both know that you can't...so what do you do? Resort to thought experiments. When you get those observations, and measurements, let me know...till that time, it is me who is supported by actual observation and you who believes in an untestable, unobservable, unmeasurable mathematical construct rather than reality.

 

[SSDD]

Another thought experiment:

I have two balls. One is 50C, the other is 100C. They are separated by a flat barrier that is kept at 0C. This barrier has a hole in it. The hole is not on the line between the two balls; the balls cannot "see" each other through the holes. The environment around the entire affair is at 25C (room temperature)

Let's look at the 50C ball. It radiates towards the cold, 0C barrier. It even radiates towards the hole through which it sees its 25C surroundings. But what happens to the IR waves when they get to the hole. If you go look up refraction in any physics textbook, you will find that the waves will depart the hole as if they were coming from a point radiator. The infrared will spread evenly throughout the 180 degrees available on the other side of the cold barrier. That means that IR will strike the hotter, 100C ball. You can say it was coming from the 50C ball or the 0C barrier, but in either case, it is coming from a colder object to a warmer object.

I've got a better one. I'll post it soon.

A better thought experiment than actually posting proof of what you believe...oh goody...lets hear it...and after we have all read it and had a chuckle...I am going to ask you once again why you don't just post some actual observed measurements of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....surely such a landmark occurrence has been duly observed, measured, and documented...correct? No? So you are still operating in the realm of faith while I am operating in the realm of what we observe, measure, and test every day.

In the end, you will still hold your faith in a mathematical model and I will have every observation ever made in support of me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another thought experiment:

I have two balls. One is 50C, the other is 100C. They are separated by a flat barrier that is kept at 0C. This barrier has a hole in it. The hole is not on the line between the two balls; the balls cannot "see" each other through the holes. The environment around the entire affair is at 25C (room temperature)

Let's look at the 50C ball. It radiates towards the cold, 0C barrier. It even radiates towards the hole through which it sees its 25C surroundings. But what happens to the IR waves when they get to the hole. If you go look up refraction in any physics textbook, you will find that the waves will depart the hole as if they were coming from a point radiator. The infrared will spread evenly throughout the 180 degrees available on the other side of the cold barrier. That means that IR will strike the hotter, 100C ball. You can say it was coming from the 50C ball or the 0C barrier, but in either case, it is coming from a colder object to a warmer object.

I've got a better one. I'll post it soon.

A better thought experiment than actually posting proof of what you believe...oh goody...lets hear it...and after we have all read it and had a chuckle...I am going to ask you once again why you don't just post some actual observed measurements of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....surely such a landmark occurrence has been duly observed, measured, and documented...correct? No? So you are still operating in the realm of faith while I am operating in the realm of what we observe, measure, and test every day.

In the end, you will still hold your faith in a mathematical model and I will have every observation ever made in support of me.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.



Did Science magazine err in their measurement of energy radiated from the cooler walls and ceiling to the warmer human body?
Do you feel they lacked fact checkers back in 1963?
You should write them and point out their serious error in this case.

Their response should be amusing.

 

[Crick]

Another thought experiment:

I have two balls. One is 50C, the other is 100C. They are separated by a flat barrier that is kept at 0C. This barrier has a hole in it. The hole is not on the line between the two balls; the balls cannot "see" each other through the holes. The environment around the entire affair is at 25C (room temperature)

Let's look at the 50C ball. It radiates towards the cold, 0C barrier. It even radiates towards the hole through which it sees its 25C surroundings. But what happens to the IR waves when they get to the hole. If you go look up refraction in any physics textbook, you will find that the waves will depart the hole as if they were coming from a point radiator. The infrared will spread evenly throughout the 180 degrees available on the other side of the cold barrier. That means that IR will strike the hotter, 100C ball. You can say it was coming from the 50C ball or the 0C barrier, but in either case, it is coming from a colder object to a warmer object.

I've got a better one. I'll post it soon.

A better thought experiment than actually posting proof of what you believe...oh goody...lets hear it...and after we have all read it and had a chuckle...I am going to ask you once again why you don't just post some actual observed measurements of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....surely such a landmark occurrence has been duly observed, measured, and documented...correct? No? So you are still operating in the realm of faith while I am operating in the realm of what we observe, measure, and test every day.

In the end, you will still hold your faith in a mathematical model and I will have every observation ever made in support of me.

They were good enough for Einstein, I think they should be good enough for a science whiz such as yourself. Plan on responding?

If not, I'll have to ask YOU for actual measurements showing an object radiating in selective directions and by selective amounts.

 

[SSDD]

If not, I'll have to ask YOU for actual measurements showing an object radiating in selective directions and by selective amounts.

I have every observation ever made. The fact that there are no measurements of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object while every observation and measurement ever made are of energy moving from warm to cool makes my point..then there is the second law which says that energy can't spontaneously move from cool to warm and the SB equation

describes a one way energy flow....

By the way, did you ever come up with a rational, scientifically, and mathematically sound reason to apply the distributive property to that equation?,,,,thought not.

 

[Crick]

If not, I'll have to ask YOU for actual measurements showing an object radiating in selective directions and by selective amounts.

I have every observation ever made.

No, you don't.

The fact that there are no measurements of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object while every observation and measurement ever made are of energy moving from warm to cool makes my point.

Every measurement ever made shows that the net heat transfer is simply the algebraic sum of each bodies radiation to the other. NO measurement ever made shown selective radiation in magnitude or direction. Your suggestion violates the Second Law, Causality, Special Relativity and a half dozen other basic principles.

then there is the second law which says that energy can't spontaneously move from cool to warm

That is NOT what the SLoT says.

and the SB equation

describes a one way energy flow....

Only if your mathematics education stopped in the second grade.

By the way, did you ever come up with a rational, scientifically, and mathematically sound reason to apply the distributive property to that equation?,,,,thought not.

It does not seem possible to me that you do not know the Distributive Property and are not aware that it is a mathematical LAW. It is applicable EVERYWHERE the law fits. And the law fits in SB.

In abstract algebra and formal logic, the distributive property of binary operations generalizes the distributive law from elementary algebra. In propositional logic, distribution refers to two valid rules of replacement. The rules allow one to reformulate conjunctions and disjunctions within logical proofs.

For example, in arithmetic:

2 · (1 + 3) = (2 · 1) + (2 · 3), but 2 / (1 + 3) ≠ (2 / 1) + (2 / 3).
In the left-hand side of the first equation, the 2 multiplies the sum of 1 and 3; on the right-hand side, it multiplies the 1 and the 3 individually, with the products added afterwards. Because these give the same final answer, we say that multiplication by 2 distributes over addition of 1 and 3. Since we could have put any real numbers in place of 2, 1, and 3 above, and still have obtained a true equation, we say that multiplication of real numbers distributes over addition of real numbers.
*********************************************************************************
Now why don't you explain where in god's green Earth you ever got the idea that it WOULDN'T apply?

Tell you what. Let's substitute some numbers in there and see what we get.

e = 4
sigma=5
A=6
T=7
Tc=8

so P = 4 * 5 * 6 * (7 - 8)
P = 120 * -1
P = -120

or

P = (4 * 5 * 6 * 7) - (4 * 5 * 6 * 8)
P = 840 - 960
P = -120

aMAZing! Why don't you see if you can find some number for which this does NOT work? Okay? We'll wait right here. We'll even hold our breath.

 

[SSDD]

No, you don't.

Epic failure...congratulations. Of course I do.

Every measurement ever made shows that the net heat transfer is simply the algebraic sum of each bodies radiation to the other. NO measurement ever made shown selective radiation in magnitude or direction. Your suggestion violates the Second Law, Causality, Special Relativity and a half dozen other basic principles.

Terribly sorry, but that isn't what every measurement ever made shows...that is your spin on what every measurement ever made shows...and spin, unfortunately is not evidence.

That is NOT what the SLoT says.

Of course it is..

It does not seem possible to me that you do not know the Distributive Property and are not aware that it is a mathematical LAW. It is applicable EVERYWHERE the law fits. And the law fits in SB.

With you, it's just ignorance on parade, isn't it. Do you think that applying the distributive property changes the SB law? And once again, can you provide a rational, scientific and mathematically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation:

[QUOTE="Crick, post: 9773263, member: 48966"In abstract algebra and formal logic, the distributive property of binary operations generalizes the distributive law from elementary algebra. In propositional logic, distribution refers to two valid rules of replacement. The rules allow one to reformulate conjunctions and disjunctions within logical proofs.

For example, in arithmetic:

2 · (1 + 3) = (2 · 1) + (2 · 3), but 2 / (1 + 3) ≠ (2 / 1) + (2 / 3).
In the left-hand side of the first equation, the 2 multiplies the sum of 1 and 3; on the right-hand side, it multiplies the 1 and the 3 individually, with the products added afterwards. Because these give the same final answer, we say that multiplication by 2 distributes over addition of 1 and 3. Since we could have put any real numbers in place of 2, 1, and 3 above, and still have obtained a true equation, we say that multiplication of real numbers distributes over addition of real numbers.
*********************************************************************************
Now why don't you explain where in god's green Earth you ever got the idea that it WOULDN'T apply?[/quote]

Yeah, yeah yeah...blah blah blah....now can you provide a rational, scientific and mathematically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation? This is, after all, a physical law we are talking about...what possible reason could there be for applying an algebraic property to it?

As I already said, it doesn't matter that you get the same answer... it is the physical process the equation describes that matters...or don't you think that the equation describes a physical process? The equation is written showing a one way energy flow from a warmer radiator to its cooler surroundings...one way energy flow....rewriting the equation, applying an algebraic property does not alter the physical process being described...

 

[Crick]

The only reason to apply the Distributive property was to make it obvious that the Stefan-Boltzman equation unequivocally states that all bodies radiate according to their temperature and nothing else: that the resultant transfer of thermal energy at any point is simply the algebraic sum of all radiation passing by. To show the world - if it's possible to do so any more clearly than you do yourself - what an insane ******* idiot you actually are.

 

[SSDD]

The only reason to apply the Distributive property was to make it obvious that the Stefan-Boltzman equation unequivocally states that all bodies radiate according to their temperature and nothing else: that the resultant transfer of thermal energy at any point is simply the algebraic sum of all radiation passing by. To show the world - if it's possible to do so any more clearly than you do yourself - what an insane ******* idiot you actually are.

So you are saying that SB wrote the law wrong? Are you saying that they weren't bright enough to write a physical law so that it showed what they found? If they intended to show a two way energy flow, do you really think that they couldn't have figured out a way to express that two way flow mathematically? Is that what your argument has come down to now?

By the way, only the most basic form of the SB equation shows that all bodies radiate according to their temperature...if they are perfect black bodies, alone in a vacuum...The rest of the law describes energy transfer and it is a one way transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings....

 

[Crick]

The only reason to apply the Distributive property was to make it obvious that the Stefan-Boltzman equation unequivocally states that all bodies radiate according to their temperature and nothing else: that the resultant transfer of thermal energy at any point is simply the algebraic sum of all radiation passing by. To show the world - if it's possible to do so any more clearly than you do yourself - what an insane ******* idiot you actually are.

So you are saying that SB wrote the law wrong?

Do you not know what an equals sign means? There is no difference between the statements with and without the Distributive Property applied.

Are you saying that they weren't bright enough to write a physical law so that it showed what they found?

No.

If they intended to show a two way energy flow, do you really think that they couldn't have figured out a way to express that two way flow mathematically?

They did.

Is that what your argument has come down to now?

Hardly. As you've been told multiple times already your ideas violate numerous fundamental physical laws. Those violations would make up the content of my arguments. This sidebar on the Distributive Property was only an attempt to show you that the two temperatures included in that version of the S-B equation simply produce the algebraic difference between the radiation of each of two bodies. Each part produced by distribution is identical to an S-B description of an instance of one-body radiation. That is

P = (e sigma A T) is the one-body form
P = e sigma A (Ta-Tb) is the two-body form
and is equivalent to
P = (e sigma A Ta) - (e sigma A Tb) which is the simply the difference between the expressions describing two, one-body instances.

By the way, only the most basic form of the SB equation shows that all bodies radiate according to their temperature...if they are perfect black bodies, alone in a vacuum...

The equation says nothing of the kind. The equation's authors tell us that the simple form calculates the radiation of a single body. Can you find a statement from Stefan, Boltzman or ANY decent authority (and by decent authority I mean I am giving you more than the usual latitude on their qualifications) that supports your contentions that objects cannot and will not radiate towards warmer objects, that the one-way radiation that does take place from a warmer object to a cooler object is proportional to the temperature difference between the two and that all objects are able not only to throttle their total emissions but possess directional control over their emissions so that they may simultaneously restrain all radiation towards warmer objects while radiating in a controlled manner towards cooler objects lying in a different direction? Eh?

Your claims are extraordinary. If they were true, such characteristics would be noted in detail in just about every work describing radiative heat transfer. Please find us one such description.

The rest of the law describes energy transfer and it is a one way transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings....

You've now told us a dozen times that the S-B equation describes a one-way transfer of energy. Could you show us an instance of text accompanying a presentation of the S-B equation that says the same thing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only reason to apply the Distributive property was to make it obvious that the Stefan-Boltzman equation unequivocally states that all bodies radiate according to their temperature and nothing else: that the resultant transfer of thermal energy at any point is simply the algebraic sum of all radiation passing by. To show the world - if it's possible to do so any more clearly than you do yourself - what an insane ******* idiot you actually are.

So you are saying that SB wrote the law wrong?

Do you not know what an equals sign means? There is no difference between the statements with and without the Distributive Property applied.

Are you saying that they weren't bright enough to write a physical law so that it showed what they found?

No.

If they intended to show a two way energy flow, do you really think that they couldn't have figured out a way to express that two way flow mathematically?

They did.

Is that what your argument has come down to now?

Hardly. As you've been told multiple times already your ideas violate numerous fundamental physical laws. Those violations would make up the content of my arguments. This sidebar on the Distributive Property was only an attempt to show you that the two temperatures included in that version of the S-B equation simply produce the algebraic difference between the radiation of each of two bodies. Each part produced by distribution is identical to an S-B description of an instance of one-body radiation. That is

P = (e sigma A T) is the one-body form
P = e sigma A (Ta-Tb) is the two-body form
and is equivalent to
P = (e sigma A Ta) - (e sigma A Tb) which is the simply the difference between the expressions describing two, one-body instances.

By the way, only the most basic form of the SB equation shows that all bodies radiate according to their temperature...if they are perfect black bodies, alone in a vacuum...

The equation says nothing of the kind. The equation's authors tell us that the simple form calculates the radiation of a single body. Can you find a statement from Stefan, Boltzman or ANY decent authority (and by decent authority I mean I am giving you more than the usual latitude on their qualifications) that supports your contentions that objects cannot and will not radiate towards warmer objects, that the one-way radiation that does take place from a warmer object to a cooler object is proportional to the temperature difference between the two and that all objects are able not only to throttle their total emissions but possess directional control over their emissions so that they may simultaneously restrain all radiation towards warmer objects while radiating in a controlled manner towards cooler objects lying in a different direction? Eh?

Your claims are extraordinary. If they were true, such characteristics would be noted in detail in just about every work describing radiative heat transfer. Please find us one such description.

The rest of the law describes energy transfer and it is a one way transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings....

You've now told us a dozen times that the S-B equation describes a one-way transfer of energy. Could you show us an instance of text accompanying a presentation of the S-B equation that says the same thing?

He's so stupid, it actually hurts.

 

[SSDD]

Do you not know what an equals sign means? There is no difference between the statements with and without the Distributive Property applied.

I do....but it is clear that you don't.

Imagine this is your bank account:


$10,000.....you make $1000 and deposit $999....your bank account is now = $10,001.

$10,000, your bank fails and pays you out at 50 cents on the dollar...you take your funds to another bank and deposit your $4999...on the way home you spend $1 on a scratch off lottery ticket and win $5002 which you promptly deposit making your account balance = $10,001.

The numbers on the right side of the equation are the same...but they do not describe the same processes. When you change the equation, you change the process being described. The fact that the number on the right side of the equals side are the same does not mean that equations describe the same thing. There is a reason the SB equation is written as a one way energy flow rather than as a two way energy flow....hate it as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact.