Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Wuwei]

Been through it all before..you are as wrong now as you were on any of the numerous times we covered this ground before...If you must relive your defeat, revisit any of the previous incarnations of that discussion...

oh the tedium...

My first comments are that you deny the laws of thermodynamics to the extent that you contradict yourself in many areas. Yes, I have said that many times but you ignore your own self contradictions. Embarrassing?

You call me wrong? You are aiming your wrath at the wrong person. You are aiming your wrath at 150 years of measured, observed, and replicated science. But I guess that is the prerogative of flat-earther types.

Your tedium is in the special denial thread made just for you. So tediate away. (I just invented a new verb!)

.

 

[SSDD]

Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..

 

[Wuwei]

Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..

You didn't defeat science. Not with your fake thermodynamics.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..

You didn't defeat science. Not with your fake thermodynamics.

.

Speaking of defeat, remember all the sources he used to post that disproved his claims?

That was awesome!!

 

[Wuwei]

Speaking of defeat, remember all the sources he used to post that disproved his claims?

That was awesome!!

Yes, an awesome flat-earther. He seemed to continually attempt to prove himself wrong.

.

 

[SSDD]

Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..

You didn't defeat science. Not with your fake thermodynamics.

.

You aren't speaking science...you are rewriting science into dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..

You didn't defeat science. Not with your fake thermodynamics.

.

You aren't speaking science...you are rewriting science into dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

But enough about your "matter stops emitting at equilibrium" and "dimmer switch" claims.

 

[Wuwei]

You aren't speaking science...you are rewriting science into dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

Nope. I have never rewritten observed, quantified, reproducible thermodynamics. I stuck to the laws as given in textbooks and university lectures. Show me an incidence where I strayed from that. You on the other hand have invented your own laws of thermodynamics which are not self consistent. And you have never quoted a reliable source that agrees with your version of thermodynamics. There are none.

In short, you are antiscience and have revealed that many times.

.

 

[jc456]

It’s not? What is it ice?

It burns? LOL!

How?

It was your claim. I laughed at you.

Changed your mind?

I asked you what it was

You don't know what fire is?

I asked you what it was, you avoided the answer yet again.

 

[jc456]

The glacier near my parents’ house is melting into oblivion.

It’s been there for 10,000+ years.

Now it’s disappearing.

S U R E

 

[jc456]

Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..

You didn't defeat science. Not with your fake thermodynamics.

.

You aren't speaking science...you are rewriting science into dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

But enough about your "matter stops emitting at equilibrium" and "dimmer switch" claims.

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet? SSDD asked you for it, you haven't posted it yet. hmmmmmm how come?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It burns? LOL!

How?

It was your claim. I laughed at you.

Changed your mind?

I asked you what it was

You don't know what fire is?

I asked you what it was, you avoided the answer yet again.

You said the Sun was hot because.....fire.

Now I need to explain what you meant?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..

You didn't defeat science. Not with your fake thermodynamics.

.

You aren't speaking science...you are rewriting science into dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

But enough about your "matter stops emitting at equilibrium" and "dimmer switch" claims.

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet? SSDD asked you for it, you haven't posted it yet. hmmmmmm how come?

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet?

You mean the one that says photons can't be emitted toward warmer matter?

No. That one doesn't exist.

 

[jc456]

How?

It was your claim. I laughed at you.

Changed your mind?

I asked you what it was

You don't know what fire is?

I asked you what it was, you avoided the answer yet again.

You said the Sun was hot because.....fire.

Now I need to explain what you meant?

It's basically what it is minus oxygen. What do you call it? and again you avoided the answer.

If the Sun Is on Fire, How Does It Get Oxygen?

 

[jc456]

Revisit any of your past defeats on this topic if you must..

You didn't defeat science. Not with your fake thermodynamics.

.

You aren't speaking science...you are rewriting science into dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

But enough about your "matter stops emitting at equilibrium" and "dimmer switch" claims.

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet? SSDD asked you for it, you haven't posted it yet. hmmmmmm how come?

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet?

You mean the one that says photons can't be emitted toward warmer matter?

No. That one doesn't exist.

yep that one, so you have no evidence of two way flow? hmmm

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was your claim. I laughed at you.

Changed your mind?

I asked you what it was

You don't know what fire is?

I asked you what it was, you avoided the answer yet again.

You said the Sun was hot because.....fire.

Now I need to explain what you meant?

It's basically what it is minus oxygen. What do you call it? and again you avoided the answer.

If the Sun Is on Fire, How Does It Get Oxygen?

Hydrogen is on fire, without oxygen, on the surface of the Sun?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You didn't defeat science. Not with your fake thermodynamics.

.

You aren't speaking science...you are rewriting science into dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

But enough about your "matter stops emitting at equilibrium" and "dimmer switch" claims.

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet? SSDD asked you for it, you haven't posted it yet. hmmmmmm how come?

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet?

You mean the one that says photons can't be emitted toward warmer matter?

No. That one doesn't exist.

yep that one, so you have no evidence of two way flow? hmmm

Yeah, I don't have SSDD's imaginary version of the 2nd Law.
No one else does either.

Weird.

 

[jc456]

I asked you what it was

You don't know what fire is?

I asked you what it was, you avoided the answer yet again.

You said the Sun was hot because.....fire.

Now I need to explain what you meant?

It's basically what it is minus oxygen. What do you call it? and again you avoided the answer.

If the Sun Is on Fire, How Does It Get Oxygen?

Hydrogen is on fire, without oxygen, on the surface of the Sun?

i asked you what it was, and there's the avoidance again, dodgeball todd still dodging balls.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't know what fire is?

I asked you what it was, you avoided the answer yet again.

You said the Sun was hot because.....fire.

Now I need to explain what you meant?

It's basically what it is minus oxygen. What do you call it? and again you avoided the answer.

If the Sun Is on Fire, How Does It Get Oxygen?

Hydrogen is on fire, without oxygen, on the surface of the Sun?

i asked you what it was, and there's the avoidance again, dodgeball todd still dodging balls.

i asked you what it was

You asked me what fire was. You don't know?

 

[jc456]

You aren't speaking science...you are rewriting science into dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

dogma supported only by unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models..

But enough about your "matter stops emitting at equilibrium" and "dimmer switch" claims.

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet? SSDD asked you for it, you haven't posted it yet. hmmmmmm how come?

you have that second version of the 2nd law yet?

You mean the one that says photons can't be emitted toward warmer matter?

No. That one doesn't exist.

yep that one, so you have no evidence of two way flow? hmmm

Yeah, I don't have SSDD's imaginary version of the 2nd Law.
No one else does either.

Weird.

except you can't provide observable cold radiating to warm. hmmmm why is that? oh yeah, 2nd law thingy. That you can't produce another version to counter point it's one way flow.