Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are still evading this point:
You stated that no process is spontaneous if there was prior input energy of any sort even though the process later spontaneously releases energy without external input. You stated that any configuration that is man-made cannot be spontaneous.

Actually, that isn't what I said...but then you can't actually read can you All the words apparently pass through some mixmaster on the way to your brain and get rearranged to mean something entirely different from what was said.

Actually, that isn't what I said..

Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

 

[Wuwei]

That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent...billy gave you the equation to figure it out...maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...or judging from the equation, most any junior high math nerd could give you a hand..

That is way way too funny. Todd set a trap and you fell for it hook line and sinker. I think any physics nerd would recognize a mole of photons as a spoof question.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Clearly, you aren't able to read and differentiate the difference between the actual second law of thermodynamics...and someone's opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the statement of the second law is as I posted...all the rest is opinion...unobserved, unmeasured, untested...

Oh the tedium of constantly having to correct your reading errors....is there anything that you don't reinterpret/

Someone's opinion?? That's funny. That is the "opinion" of 150 years of scientists. You think the opinion of a flat-earther is carries more weight than hundreds of thousands of scientists?

.

 

[Wuwei]

You are still evading this point:
You stated that no process is spontaneous if there was prior input energy of any sort even though the process later spontaneously releases energy without external input. You stated that any configuration that is man-made cannot be spontaneous.

Actually, that isn't what I said...but then you can't actually read can you All the words apparently pass through some mixmaster on the way to your brain and get rearranged to mean something entirely different from what was said.

Yes that is what you said, this is the third time you asked for your quotes. And this is the third time I responded with the same thing. As you would say, Oh the tedium!

Response to my saying a chemical light stick emits spontaneously.

Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous....same old thing..

Response to slow decay phosphorescence.

No...phosphorescence is the re emission of energy previously absorbed...not spontaneous...no absorption of energy...no later emission of energy...We have covered this all before.

Response to luminescence from plants and animals

Living creature...body is doing work to produce luminescence...luminescence stops shortly after death...not spontaneous.

Response to sunlight passing through hot corona

Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.

Light bulbs are not spontaneous.

Light sticks, like light bulbs etc are the product of work and nothing about them is spontaneous..

Response to clarification: “So you say that no process in physics is spontaneous if work was done prior to an energy release after all work is ended.”

I don't say it...physics says it.

That is a lie and you know it. I gave you physics definitions of a spontaneous process before. Here is an easy to understand definition. Note the bold faced:

19.1: Spontaneous Processes
A spontaneous process is one that occurs naturally under certain conditions. A nonspontaneous process, on the other hand, will not take place unless it is "driven" by the continual input of energy from an external source. A process that is spontaneous in one direction under a particular set of conditions is nonspontaneous in the reverse direction.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent...billy gave you the equation to figure it out...maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...or judging from the equation, most any junior high math nerd could give you a hand..

That is way way too funny. Todd set a trap and you fell for it hook line and sinker. I think any physics nerd would recognize a mole of photons as a spoof question.

.

You and Todd are morons... Anything that does not fit your religious beliefs are dismissed without a thought and that is why climactic science is in the shit pile it is. I gave you the equation, I even showed you the mass was dependent on the energy contained... Either you two are too stupid to understand this or intentionally lying. Which is it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent...billy gave you the equation to figure it out...maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...or judging from the equation, most any junior high math nerd could give you a hand..

That is way way too funny. Todd set a trap and you fell for it hook line and sinker. I think any physics nerd would recognize a mole of photons as a spoof question.

.

You and Todd are morons... Anything that does not fit your religious beliefs are dismissed without a thought and that is why climactic science is in the shit pile it is. I gave you the equation, I even showed you the mass was dependent on the energy contained... Either you two are too stupid to understand this or intentionally lying. Which is it?

View attachment 277610

You have a source that give the mass of a photon, post it already. Moron.

I even showed you the mass was dependent on the energy contained...

Awesome. Post a source that says that. Explicitly.

 

[Wuwei]

You have a source that give the mass of a photon, post it already. Moron.

I even showed you the mass was dependent on the energy contained...

Awesome. Post a source that says that. Explicitly.

This line of discussion is hilarious. The science deniers know how the rest mass is defined but misunderstand the idea of mass. Mass is an intrinsic property of a particle and is always given as the rest mass.
Energy, relativistic mass and momentum of a photon are not intrinsic properties of the photon.

Yet the science deniers want to quibble over a definition and lose sight of the actual physics, and want to call others morons.

.

 

[SSDD]

Clearly, you aren't able to read and differentiate the difference between the actual second law of thermodynamics...and someone's opinion based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...the statement of the second law is as I posted...all the rest is opinion...unobserved, unmeasured, untested...

Oh the tedium of constantly having to correct your reading errors....is there anything that you don't reinterpret/

Someone's opinion?? That's funny. That is the "opinion" of 150 years of scientists. You think the opinion of a flat-earther is carries more weight than hundreds of thousands of scientists?

.

Care to hazard a guess as to how many opinions that had been accepted for just as long or longer were found to be wrong?

Whoever is right is right regardless of who holds what opinion. The fact that thousands BELIEVE means exactly squat. Let’s see the observed measured actual evidence...not the misunderstood “evidence” that is good enough to fool people with a blinding bias.

 

[SSDD]

That would be entirely dependent on the amount of energy they represent...billy gave you the equation to figure it out...maybe you know someone who knows an adult who can help you out with the math...or judging from the equation, most any junior high math nerd could give you a hand..

That is way way too funny. Todd set a trap and you fell for it hook line and sinker. I think any physics nerd would recognize a mole of photons as a spoof question.

.

Todd, being the doofus he is is liable to ask anything and when he uses terms in error, you go ahead and answer as it is pointless to point out hus mistake..

 

[SSDD]

You are still evading this point:
You stated that no process is spontaneous if there was prior input energy of any sort even though the process later spontaneously releases energy without external input. You stated that any configuration that is man-made cannot be spontaneous.

Actually, that isn't what I said...but then you can't actually read can you All the words apparently pass through some mixmaster on the way to your brain and get rearranged to mean something entirely different from what was said.

Yes that is what you said, this is the third time you asked for your quotes. And this is the third time I responded with the same thing. As you would say, Oh the tedium!

Response to my saying a chemical light stick emits spontaneously.

Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous....same old thing..

Response to slow decay phosphorescence.

No...phosphorescence is the re emission of energy previously absorbed...not spontaneous...no absorption of energy...no later emission of energy...We have covered this all before.

Response to luminescence from plants and animals

Living creature...body is doing work to produce luminescence...luminescence stops shortly after death...not spontaneous.

Response to sunlight passing through hot corona

Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.

Light bulbs are not spontaneous.

Light sticks, like light bulbs etc are the product of work and nothing about them is spontaneous..

Response to clarification: “So you say that no process in physics is spontaneous if work was done prior to an energy release after all work is ended.”

I don't say it...physics says it.

That is a lie and you know it. I gave you physics definitions of a spontaneous process before. Here is an easy to understand definition. Note the bold faced:

19.1: Spontaneous Processes
A spontaneous process is one that occurs naturally under certain conditions. A nonspontaneous process, on the other hand, will not take place unless it is "driven" by the continual input of energy from an external source. A process that is spontaneous in one direction under a particular set of conditions is nonspontaneous in the reverse direction.

It is not my problem that every example you can come up with is nothing more than you being fooled...there is a reason that there is a physical law that states that energy does not move spontaneously from a lower energy state to a higher energy state...any example you can name is not going to be what you thought it was...do you think science never considered your examples and dismissed them in a millisecond for the very reasons I noted? If they were valid, the second law would be invalidated...

If you ever came up with an actual example of energy moving spontaneously from a low energy state to a higher energy state it would invalidate the mother of all physical laws...the fact that you think you can come up with one that is easily observable is prima facie evidence that you are a dupe.

 

[SSDD]

You have a source that give the mass of a photon, post it already. Moron.

I even showed you the mass was dependent on the energy contained...

Awesome. Post a source that says that. Explicitly.

This line of discussion is hilarious. The science deniers know how the rest mass is defined but misunderstand the idea of mass. Mass is an intrinsic property of a particle and is always given as the rest mass.
Energy, relativistic mass and momentum of a photon are not intrinsic properties of the photon.

Yet the science deniers want to quibble over a definition and lose sight of the actual physics, and want to call others morons.

.

Your bias makes you stupid...the special sort of stupid that can’t be fixed

How much did you say of a “square meter” of atmosphere (still laughing about that one) that is capable of radiating is actually radiating?

 

[Wuwei]

Care to hazard a guess as to how many opinions that had been accepted for just as long or longer were found to be wrong?

False generalization fallacy.

Whoever is right is right regardless of who holds what opinion. The fact that thousands BELIEVE means exactly squat. Let’s see the observed measured actual evidence...not the misunderstood “evidence” that is good enough to fool people with a blinding bias.

Your opinion on thermodynamics has absolutely no observed measured actual evidence. You have never shown it. The basics of thermodynamics has been proven many times.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Todd, being the doofus he is is liable to ask anything and when he uses terms in error, you go ahead and answer as it is pointless to point out hus mistake..

Your games are not science. You don't understand a spoof when you see one. Lighten up. As a game Todd won. You lost.

.

 

[SSDD]

Care to hazard a guess as to how many opinions that had been accepted for just as long or longer were found to be wrong?

False generalization fallacy.

Whoever is right is right regardless of who holds what opinion. The fact that thousands BELIEVE means exactly squat. Let’s see the observed measured actual evidence...not the misunderstood “evidence” that is good enough to fool people with a blinding bias.

Your opinion on thermodynamics has absolutely no observed measured actual evidence. You have never shown it. The basics of thermodynamics has been proven many times.

.

More “interpretations of what I actuallly said...learn to read...get back to me when you can argue against what I actually said...I will check back periodically...

 

[Wuwei]

You are still evading this point:
You stated that no process is spontaneous if there was prior input energy of any sort even though the process later spontaneously releases energy without external input. You stated that any configuration that is man-made cannot be spontaneous.

Actually, that isn't what I said...but then you can't actually read can you All the words apparently pass through some mixmaster on the way to your brain and get rearranged to mean something entirely different from what was said.

Yes that is what you said, this is the third time you asked for your quotes. And this is the third time I responded with the same thing. As you would say, Oh the tedium!

Response to my saying a chemical light stick emits spontaneously.

Man made...work went into production...not spontaneous....same old thing..

Response to slow decay phosphorescence.

No...phosphorescence is the re emission of energy previously absorbed...not spontaneous...no absorption of energy...no later emission of energy...We have covered this all before.

Response to luminescence from plants and animals

Living creature...body is doing work to produce luminescence...luminescence stops shortly after death...not spontaneous.

Response to sunlight passing through hot corona

Multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous.

Light bulbs are not spontaneous.

Light sticks, like light bulbs etc are the product of work and nothing about them is spontaneous..

Response to clarification: “So you say that no process in physics is spontaneous if work was done prior to an energy release after all work is ended.”

I don't say it...physics says it.

That is a lie and you know it. I gave you physics definitions of a spontaneous process before. Here is an easy to understand definition. Note the bold faced:

19.1: Spontaneous Processes
A spontaneous process is one that occurs naturally under certain conditions. A nonspontaneous process, on the other hand, will not take place unless it is "driven" by the continual input of energy from an external source. A process that is spontaneous in one direction under a particular set of conditions is nonspontaneous in the reverse direction.

It is not my problem that every example you can come up with is nothing more than you being fooled...there is a reason that there is a physical law that states that energy does not move spontaneously from a lower energy state to a higher energy state...any example you can name is not going to be what you thought it was...do you think science never considered your examples and dismissed them in a millisecond for the very reasons I noted? If they were valid, the second law would be invalidated...

If you ever came up with an actual example of energy moving spontaneously from a low energy state to a higher energy state it would invalidate the mother of all physical laws...the fact that you think you can come up with one that is easily observable is prima facie evidence that you are a dupe.

You can't even get your fake science straight. I went through a list of processes which you claimed are not spontaneous because they were "man made" or "prior energy absorbed", or "work being done" In that case they do not violate the second law according to your opinion. So what are you complaining about?

In fact you seem to believe no radiation processes is spontaneous. If that's the case, then no radiation process violates the statement,

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.​

That means radiation from any object can be absorbed by any object at any temperature.

If there is a radiation process you think is spontaneous, what is it? Otherwise just what are you complaining about?

.

 

[Wuwei]

Care to hazard a guess as to how many opinions that had been accepted for just as long or longer were found to be wrong?

False generalization fallacy.

Whoever is right is right regardless of who holds what opinion. The fact that thousands BELIEVE means exactly squat. Let’s see the observed measured actual evidence...not the misunderstood “evidence” that is good enough to fool people with a blinding bias.

Your opinion on thermodynamics has absolutely no observed measured actual evidence. You have never shown it. The basics of thermodynamics has been proven many times.

More “interpretations of what I actuallly said...learn to read...get back to me when you can argue against what I actually said...I will check back periodically...

What did I interpret?

.

 

[SSDD]

Care to hazard a guess as to how many opinions that had been accepted for just as long or longer were found to be wrong?

False generalization fallacy.

Whoever is right is right regardless of who holds what opinion. The fact that thousands BELIEVE means exactly squat. Let’s see the observed measured actual evidence...not the misunderstood “evidence” that is good enough to fool people with a blinding bias.

Your opinion on thermodynamics has absolutely no observed measured actual evidence. You have never shown it. The basics of thermodynamics has been proven many times.

More “interpretations of what I actuallly said...learn to read...get back to me when you can argue against what I actually said...I will check back periodically...

What did I interpret?

.

Learn to read and it will become obvious...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Care to hazard a guess as to how many opinions that had been accepted for just as long or longer were found to be wrong?

False generalization fallacy.

Whoever is right is right regardless of who holds what opinion. The fact that thousands BELIEVE means exactly squat. Let’s see the observed measured actual evidence...not the misunderstood “evidence” that is good enough to fool people with a blinding bias.

Your opinion on thermodynamics has absolutely no observed measured actual evidence. You have never shown it. The basics of thermodynamics has been proven many times.

More “interpretations of what I actuallly said...learn to read...get back to me when you can argue against what I actually said...I will check back periodically...

What did I interpret?

.

Learn to read and it will become obvious...

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Right. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a 40C object to a 50C object.

But if I apply work to raise the 40C object to 41C, now energy can flow from the cooler object to the 50C object.

 

[Wuwei]

Care to hazard a guess as to how many opinions that had been accepted for just as long or longer were found to be wrong?

False generalization fallacy.

Whoever is right is right regardless of who holds what opinion. The fact that thousands BELIEVE means exactly squat. Let’s see the observed measured actual evidence...not the misunderstood “evidence” that is good enough to fool people with a blinding bias.

Your opinion on thermodynamics has absolutely no observed measured actual evidence. You have never shown it. The basics of thermodynamics has been proven many times.

More “interpretations of what I actuallly said...learn to read...get back to me when you can argue against what I actually said...I will check back periodically...

What did I interpret?

.

Learn to read and it will become obvious...

Sorry I couldn't find anything I misinterpreted.
This is my favorite correct interpretation of your opinion of thermodynamics.

• No radiation process on earth is spontaneous since all radiation processes use prior absorbed energy.
• Therefore no radiation process violates the statement,
  Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
• That means radiation from any object can be absorbed by any object at any temperature.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Right. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a 40C object to a 50C object.

But if I apply work to raise the 40C object to 41C, now energy can flow from the cooler object to the 50C object.

SSDD's sure painted him in a corner with his fake fizzics.

.