LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.

No..it only moves towards cooler areas...refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?

maybe you should ask it.

It would give a more intelligent answer than you're capable of...…..

 

[jc456]

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.

No..it only moves towards cooler areas...refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?

maybe you should ask it.

It would give a more intelligent answer than you're capable of...…..

go for it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.

No..it only moves towards cooler areas...refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?

maybe you should ask it.

It would give a more intelligent answer than you're capable of...…..

go for it.

I just talked to some of SSDD's smart photons. They agree you're a moron.

 

[jc456]

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

No..it only moves towards cooler areas...refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?

maybe you should ask it.

It would give a more intelligent answer than you're capable of...…..

go for it.

I just talked to some of SSDD's smart photons. They agree you're a moron.

thank you. I appreciate that you spoke to those photons. so now you admit they are smart photons. As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.

 

[SSDD]

Totally wrong.

And yet...every observation and measurement ever made agrees with me...

Totally wrong.

So you can't read an equation...how unsurprising is that?

You are essentially saying every physicist has a miserable understanding. You are alone in your fake science .

I am just stating what the physical laws, and the equations associated with them say...if the physical laws are wrong, then get them changed..

When I say you are totally wrong. I mean you disagree with every physicist and text book and you promote the violation of many physical laws and observations and experiments. We have been through this many times but you prefer to remain a troll.

Actually, you don't have a clue and the only thing I disagree with is your incessant always wrong interpretation...

The equations I provided above say what they say...a mathematical equation is not open to interpretation...it is an explicit statement and has an explicit meaning...sorry you can't read it.

 

[SSDD]

JC, Note the second line in the second portion - beneath the dividing bar. What does that equation begin with? Rnet=. This was in response to SSDD's statement that "There is no "net" energy. You cannot derive it from the SB equation."

Got any observed, measured instance of spontaneous net energy flow? Didn't think so.. We can certainly measure energy moving from warm objects to cool objects, but can't measure energy moving in the other direction...Net is an assumption based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...it doesn't exist in reality.

 

[Wuwei]

Since you are cross posting your same crap. I will cross post my reply.

Tell me why you think the standard derivation of that form of the SB equation in textbooks is wrong.

Even Stefan in his original paper gave the same derivation in 1879.
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf

Look at the top of page 411 of Stefan's paper just under the title, "II. Uber die Bestimmung ......."
This is the translation of the first two sentences

The absolute magnitude of the heat emitted by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of heat radiated by the body over the warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment.​

At the bottom of page 411, he writes,

We choose the law of radiation as the formula of the fourth powers of the absolute temperature thus

H₁ = A T₁⁴ . . . H₂ = A T₂⁴​

in which A is largely dependent on the surface of the body. [Later called emissivity.]
The cooling rate for the bare thermometer bulb is determined by

w₁ = 3A/r₁cs (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)​

The Dartmouth excerpt even uses the same notation of temperatures T₁⁴ and T₂⁴. Stefan refers to heat with an H, for the German Hitze.
None of the hundreds of thousands of scientists since then have disagreed with Stefan. In essence you are calling the understanding of Stefan and thousands and thousands of scientists since then bullshit.

Au contraire, what you are saying is total bullshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?

maybe you should ask it.

It would give a more intelligent answer than you're capable of...…..

go for it.

I just talked to some of SSDD's smart photons. They agree you're a moron.

thank you. I appreciate that you spoke to those photons. so now you admit they are smart photons. As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.

I appreciate that you spoke to those photons.

No problem. It's nice to speak to something smarter than you.

As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.

They said they don't have a thermometer, they can't measure their target's temperature.

 

[jc456]

maybe you should ask it.

It would give a more intelligent answer than you're capable of...…..

go for it.

I just talked to some of SSDD's smart photons. They agree you're a moron.

thank you. I appreciate that you spoke to those photons. so now you admit they are smart photons. As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.

I appreciate that you spoke to those photons.

No problem. It's nice to speak to something smarter than you.

As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.

They said they don't have a thermometer, they can't measure their target's temperature.

They said they don't have a thermometer, they can't measure their target's temperature

they don't need one, the physical law will ensure they flow correctly warm to cold.

 

[mamooth]

I have no theory...

On that, everyone agrees. Even when pressed, you can't even state what your theory supposedly says.

I asked you for an experiment that could prove or disprove your version of reality. You're unable to come up with one. As your theory is not disprovable, it therefore falls in the category of a religion or pseudoscience.

Let me help you out, by designing such an experiment.

Take 2 large and thin metal plates, placed in parallel close together. Put thermocouples on them, put them in a near-vacuum and isolate them from the environment. Let them come to thermal equilibrium at the same temperature.

Then, using a small distributed heating element inside the right plate, increase its temperature just a bit, so that it's now warmer than the left plate.

According to the sane theory, that will have almost no effect on the temperature of the left plate. The increase in radiation out of the right plate will be tiny, so there will be only a tiny increase in temperature of the left plate.

According to your cuckoobananas theory, the left plate will be now be unable to radiate rightwards at the warmer right plate, so the molecules on the right surface of the left plate will be forced to radiate leftwards back into itself, so the left plate will warm strongly.

Needless to say, that won't happen. The system will behave as the sane physics predicts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It would give a more intelligent answer than you're capable of...…..

go for it.

I just talked to some of SSDD's smart photons. They agree you're a moron.

thank you. I appreciate that you spoke to those photons. so now you admit they are smart photons. As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.

I appreciate that you spoke to those photons.

No problem. It's nice to speak to something smarter than you.

As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.

They said they don't have a thermometer, they can't measure their target's temperature.

They said they don't have a thermometer, they can't measure their target's temperature

they don't need one, the physical law will ensure they flow correctly warm to cold.

So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?

 

[SSDD]

Tell me why you think the standard derivation of that form of the SB equation in textbooks is wrong.

First...that isn't the "standard" deviation...it is used in a few textbooks, primarily used in teaching the soft science of climatology....

Even Stefan in his original paper gave the same derivation in 1879.
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf

And it is sweet how you believe you saw your "standard derivation" in Stefan's work...it isn't there...and there isn't a single instance in the entire paper in which the temperature of T is greater than Tc..not one...

At the bottom of page 411, he writes,

We choose the law of radiation as the formula of the fourth powers of the absolute temperature thus

H₁ = A T₁⁴ . . . H₂ = A T₂⁴​

in which A is largely dependent on the surface of the body. [Later called emissivity.]
The cooling rate for the bare thermometer bulb is determined by

w₁ = 3A/r₁cs (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)​

Newsflash...he is only telling you about how much energy the radiator is losing...In which part of that equation do you believe you believe you see T at a lower temperature thanTc? That equation only gives you information about how much energy the radiator is losing...
​

The Dartmouth excerpt even uses the same notation of temperatures T₁⁴ and T₂⁴. Stefan refers to heat with an H, for the German Hitze.

No...your Dartmouth piece of crap is set up in such a fashion to allow Tc to be warmer than T...therein lies the error...Stefan assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc...one way energy flow...

 

[SSDD]

On that, everyone agrees. Even when pressed, you can't even state what your theory supposedly says.

My statement is that of the physical law...without alteration...without interpretation...without change...your claims are not.

I asked you for an experiment that could prove or disprove your version of reality. You're unable to come up with one. As your theory is not disprovable, it therefore falls in the category of a religion or pseudoscience.

Every experiment on spontaneous energy movement ever done shows one thing...one way movement from warm to cool...precisely as the physical law states...if you believe some experiment has shown spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm, by all means post it up.

Let me help you out, by designing such an experiment.

Thought experiments from a hairball who can't read an equation...that's rich. Rather than make up a thought experiment...just show me something done in the real world...energy movement is easily measured in the 21st century...no need to make something up...show me a real experiment that demonstrate spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warm object.

 

[Crick]

You have been shown multiple statements of physical law, including by their very originators, that show your interpretation to be completely incorrect. You simply pretend you never heard or saw such things. You've become really tiresome.

 

[Wuwei]

First...that isn't the "standard" deviation...it is used in a few textbooks, primarily used in teaching the soft science of climatology....

You are totally wrong. It occurs in all textbooks that demonstrate the derivation. You have no source that says otherwise.

Every experiment on spontaneous energy movement ever done shows one thing...one way movement from warm to cool...precisely as the physical law states...if you believe some experiment has shown spontaneous energy movement from cool to warm, by all means post it up.

All experiments show one way movement of heat from warm to cool. Here are the experiments or observations that show spontaneous movement of photons from cooler temperature to a warmer temperature.

Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.​

Newsflash...he is only telling you about how much energy the radiator is losing.

Stefan showed the derivation of his equation in the same form as the Dartmouth derivation.

No...your Dartmouth piece of crap is set up in such a fashion to allow Tc to be warmer than T...therein lies the error...Stefan assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc...one way energy flow...

Liar. Stefan showed no such thing. But yes we know you believe thermodynamics is a piece of crap.

You can't say anything about science unless you lie, or say proven science is crap.

.

 

[SSDD]

You have been shown multiple statements of physical law, including by their very originators, that show your interpretation to be completely incorrect. You simply pretend you never heard or saw such things. You've become really tiresome.

No...none of those statements ever said anything about net energy flow...they all describe one way energy movement from warm to cool...the interpretations you guys indulged in talked about net...but the laws themselves...not so much.

 

[SSDD]

You are totally wrong. It occurs in all textbooks that demonstrate the derivation. You have no source that says otherwise.

Which are precious few...unless perhaps you are taking that equation out of the context of a mid point in the calculations before the equation was reduced to its final form...in which case, I am once again laughing in your face.

All experiments show one way movement of heat from warm to cool. Here are the experiments or observations that show spontaneous movement of photons from cooler temperature to a warmer temperature.

Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.

Sorry guy...none of those energy movements are spontaneous...if they were, then the second law wouldn't say what it says...

Stefan showed the derivation of his equation in the same form as the Dartmouth derivation.

Sorry...you are wrong. But it is sweet how you can fool yourself with anything.

Liar. Stefan showed no such thing. But yes we know you believe thermodynamics is a piece of crap.

Thermodynamics is great...it is your interpretations that are pure drek.

 

[Crick]

Man, are you stretching.

Wuwei has posted multiple derivations of heat transfer work that indicate two way flow and the second law satisfied by net energy transfer. You have shown us ZILCH.

 

[jc456]

go for it.

I just talked to some of SSDD's smart photons. They agree you're a moron.

thank you. I appreciate that you spoke to those photons. so now you admit they are smart photons. As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.

I appreciate that you spoke to those photons.

No problem. It's nice to speak to something smarter than you.

As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.

They said they don't have a thermometer, they can't measure their target's temperature.

They said they don't have a thermometer, they can't measure their target's temperature

they don't need one, the physical law will ensure they flow correctly warm to cold.

So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?

well 99.9% collide, but the .1% would radiate to space.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just talked to some of SSDD's smart photons. They agree you're a moron.

thank you. I appreciate that you spoke to those photons. so now you admit they are smart photons. As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.

I appreciate that you spoke to those photons.

No problem. It's nice to speak to something smarter than you.

As such, then know not to flow cold to warm.

They said they don't have a thermometer, they can't measure their target's temperature.

They said they don't have a thermometer, they can't measure their target's temperature

they don't need one, the physical law will ensure they flow correctly warm to cold.

So a CO2 molecule at 0C won't emit toward the ground at 20C unless work is done?

well 99.9% collide, but the .1% would radiate to space.

How else would they warm the atmosphere?