No Evidence

[jc456]

So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross? They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed. They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change

You got net and gross backwards.

.

Chalk up one more thing you got wrong...

Here....from the math dictionary...

difference - The result of subtracting one number from another. How much one number differs from another.

Net - What is left after all deductions have been made.

from the SB explanation,.... The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.
radiation from hot bodies. doesn't say jack about cold bodies. not a word. And net only means the amount of energy the hot body lost to the cold body and the received energy by the cold body. It isn't that damn difficult.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation. The hotter an object is the more energy it radiates per second.

Infrared Radiation – electromagnetic waves, absorb, emit, infra red, PIR

Be sure to post your sources that say otherwise.

I never said I disagree with that! I said that obects radiate warm to cool. While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting. And vice a versa the warm emitting object won’t absorb. When the cool object stops absorbing, it can then emit as long as a cooler object is near. I never said the cool object won’t ever radiate!

While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting

Yes, I remember your error.

Which puts the onus on you to prove me wrong! I’ll wait

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation.

No mention of, "unless warmer matter is nearby".

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

Still no proof of your claim? I'll wait.

still can't prove your two way hypothesis. in SB, T is always greater than Tc. you need more memory, cause you keep asking me to provide that same comment.

BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool. You get that right?

In turn, I will wait for you two way proof. SB and 2nd law are all I need to make my point. now show me which law is your evidence. still waiting.

still can't prove your two way hypothesis.

It's not my hypothesis.
And it's clearly seen in SB and every observation ever.
Unlike your parroting of SSDD's lonely hypothesis.

in SB, T is always greater than Tc.

You're lying. Again.

BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool.

You feeling okay? Of course the net flow is from warm to cool.
Whether T is warmer or Tc is warmer.

In turn, I will wait for you two way proof.

Even Einstein (and everyone else in physics) talked about two way flow at equilibrium.
If you have a link showing all those claims were refuted, post it already.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross? They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed. They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change

You got net and gross backwards.

.

Chalk up one more thing you got wrong...

Here....from the math dictionary...

difference - The result of subtracting one number from another. How much one number differs from another.

Net - What is left after all deductions have been made.

from the SB explanation,.... The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.
radiation from hot bodies. doesn't say jack about cold bodies. not a word. And net only means the amount of energy the hot body lost to the cold body and the received energy by the cold body. It isn't that damn difficult.

from the SB explanation,.... The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Excellent! You've finally admitted SSDD was wrong.

 

[SSDD]

from the SB explanation,.... The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.
radiation from hot bodies. doesn't say jack about cold bodies. not a word. And net only means the amount of energy the hot body lost to the cold body and the received energy by the cold body. It isn't that damn difficult.

They know it is gross energy movement...but just can't bring themselves to accept it because it is in conflict with their beliefs...No one could possibly be so stupid as to not know it...well...maybe toddler and the hairball...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

from the SB explanation,.... The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.
radiation from hot bodies. doesn't say jack about cold bodies. not a word. And net only means the amount of energy the hot body lost to the cold body and the received energy by the cold body. It isn't that damn difficult.

They know it is gross energy movement...but just can't bring themselves to accept it because it is in conflict with their beliefs...No one could possibly be so stupid as to not know it...well...maybe toddler and the hairball...

They know it is gross energy movement..

It means gross, that's why it says net.

DURR!

but just can't bring themselves to accept it because it is in conflict with their beliefs...

Speaking of beliefs, you still the only source for, "Objects at equilibrium cease all radiating"?

Weird.

 

[Crick]

I have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation. Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation. Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.

How about this skidmark...

Your thermal "trap" does not exist... What is stopping that LWIR in our atmosphere? Can you show me evidence, ANY EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED EVIDENCE of your fantasy?

As for the rest of the believers of AGW and their failure of hypothesis about energy flow, can any of you show, by empirically observed evidence, proof of energy flow from the cooler atmosphere back to earth? I am still waiting for any of you to show how energy, at a cooler emitted temperature (wavelength) is warming a warmer object without adding work and energy consumption to make it happen..

 

[Crick]

You apparently do not understand the question I asked. If you agree with Same Shit Different Day that matter will not radiate towards warmer matter 1) You are no graduate physics student 2) Show us an observation of that taking place: any matter under any circumstances ceasing to radiate IR. Your graphs, obviously, show no such thing.

 

[jc456]

I never said I disagree with that! I said that obects radiate warm to cool. While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting. And vice a versa the warm emitting object won’t absorb. When the cool object stops absorbing, it can then emit as long as a cooler object is near. I never said the cool object won’t ever radiate!

While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting

Yes, I remember your error.

Which puts the onus on you to prove me wrong! I’ll wait

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation.

No mention of, "unless warmer matter is nearby".

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

Still no proof of your claim? I'll wait.

still can't prove your two way hypothesis. in SB, T is always greater than Tc. you need more memory, cause you keep asking me to provide that same comment.

BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool. You get that right?

In turn, I will wait for you two way proof. SB and 2nd law are all I need to make my point. now show me which law is your evidence. still waiting.

still can't prove your two way hypothesis.

It's not my hypothesis.
And it's clearly seen in SB and every observation ever.
Unlike your parroting of SSDD's lonely hypothesis.

in SB, T is always greater than Tc.

You're lying. Again.

BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool.

You feeling okay? Of course the net flow is from warm to cool.
Whether T is warmer or Tc is warmer.

In turn, I will wait for you two way proof.

Even Einstein (and everyone else in physics) talked about two way flow at equilibrium.
If you have a link showing all those claims were refuted, post it already.

Post that Einstein data

 

[jc456]

I have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation. Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.

Well if he says that, how would he be able to provide you evidence of something that isn’t happening? Why don’t you just show it does? You know empirically observed

 

[IanC]

While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting

Yes, I remember your error.

Which puts the onus on you to prove me wrong! I’ll wait

All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation.

No mention of, "unless warmer matter is nearby".

if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate

Still no proof of your claim? I'll wait.

still can't prove your two way hypothesis. in SB, T is always greater than Tc. you need more memory, cause you keep asking me to provide that same comment.

BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool. You get that right?

In turn, I will wait for you two way proof. SB and 2nd law are all I need to make my point. now show me which law is your evidence. still waiting.

still can't prove your two way hypothesis.

It's not my hypothesis.
And it's clearly seen in SB and every observation ever.
Unlike your parroting of SSDD's lonely hypothesis.

in SB, T is always greater than Tc.

You're lying. Again.

BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool.

You feeling okay? Of course the net flow is from warm to cool.
Whether T is warmer or Tc is warmer.

In turn, I will wait for you two way proof.

Even Einstein (and everyone else in physics) talked about two way flow at equilibrium.
If you have a link showing all those claims were refuted, post it already.

Post that Einstein data

I've seen the Einstein quote at least two dozen times and I don't even read most of the threads.

Why would reposting something that you have repeatedly ignored in the past be useful?

 

[SSDD]

I have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation. Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.

You aren't very quick are you? You can't measure energy movement between two objects at the same temperature...you can measure energy movement between two objects at different temperaratures...the lack of measurement between objects of the same temperatures is an observation of no energy movement.

 

[Crick]

I didn't say at the same temperature. I said, repeatedly, ANY matter under ANY circumstances. What I'd really like to see is a measurement of some matter radiating that goes to zero when warmer matter is placed behind the sensor. But I'm obviously willing to give you a lot of flexibility. EMPIRICAL evidence of ANY matter under ANY circumstances not radiating per its temperature.

 

[SSDD]

I didn't say at the same temperature. I said, repeatedly, ANY matter under ANY circumstances. What I'd really like to see is a measurement of some matter radiating that goes to zero when warmer matter is placed behind the sensor. But I'm obviously willing to give you a lot of flexibility. EMPIRICAL evidence of ANY matter under ANY circumstances not radiating per its temperature.

Wouldn't two objects of the same temperature constitute matter and a circumstance...

If you can't measure energy moving between objects of the same temperature but you can measure energy moving between objects of different temperatures...the measurement between the two objects of the same temperature is zero...

I don't need flexibility...every observation of spontaneous energy movement ever made is of energy moving in one direction...warm to cool..

 

[Crick]

Fine. Show us empirical evidence of matter in the presence of other matter the same temperature NOT RADIATING.

 

[SSDD]

Fine. Show us empirical evidence of matter in the presence of other matter the same temperature NOT RADIATING.

What do you want skidmark...a measurement of something that isn't happening? How stupid are you? The fact that you can measure energy moving between objects of different temperatures but can't measure energy moving between objects of different temperatures is your measurement...the measurement is zero...use your brain...stop being a dupe.

 

[Wuwei]

Wouldn't two objects of the same temperature constitute matter and a circumstance...

If you can't measure energy moving between objects of the same temperature but you can measure energy moving between objects of different temperatures...the measurement between the two objects of the same temperature is zero...

I don't need flexibility...every observation of spontaneous energy movement ever made is of energy moving in one direction...warm to cool..

If a hollow sphere is uniformly red hot you would say there is no radiation in the inside at equilibrium because it's all the same temperature inside and out. The inside would be pitch black if there is no radiation.

 

[SSDD]

wishes
If a hollow sphere is uniformly red hot you would say there is no radiation in the inside at equilibrium because it's all the same temperature inside and out. The inside would be pitch black if there is no radiation.

If wishes were horses...beggars would ride...go find some real evidence...

 

[Wuwei]

If wishes were horses...beggars would ride...go find some real evidence...

You have no answer do you.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

wishes
If a hollow sphere is uniformly red hot you would say there is no radiation in the inside at equilibrium because it's all the same temperature inside and out. The inside would be pitch black if there is no radiation.

If wishes were horses...beggars would ride...go find some real evidence...

go find some real evidence...

Says the man with no backup for his many ridiculous claims.