Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[jc456]

what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

Heat flows to cold and that's it

That's right.

Radiate = heat,

Photons aren't heat.

20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

If there is a jc456 caveat to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, you should submit it for publication.
You'd get a Nobel for sure.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

nope, all you need to do is supply an experiment that it does. see how that works.

BTW, I know already you won't and can't. because, wait for it, one doesn't exist. prove me wrong.

If you need me to prove Stefan-Boltzmann, you're going to be disappointed.

Feel free to disprove it...…….or not, your ignorance doesn't impact me at all.

like I said, I knew you wouldn't because you can't. just admit it, you can't and end this dialog. why do you wish to wash rinse repeat your nonsense you know you can't prove? you look small.

I admit, your need for me to prove Stefan-Boltzmann is cute.

you can write that all day, I'm still waiting on your experiment. We're waiting!!!

Toddsterpatriot you have me confused with someone who would care about your thoughts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ...

Well, this thread was mostly created for someone who believes a thermometer between two 10ºC objects won't read anything, because objects at equilibrium cease all radiating.

I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

Their confusion is due to their comprehensive misunderstanding of physics.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures. I asked for you to prove it. go for it. post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.

Because the two objects stop radiating?

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects and and that's all you'll read. prove me wrong. I give a shit if you think they're radiating at that point, the heat flow is room to objects. and that's it.

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects

I'm only interested in the flow between the objects.

Does it stop?

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period. whatever you wish or think happens between the objects I don't care. I know what is happening and friend, you'll never prove your point. NEVER!!!! BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period.

Didn't you get the memo?
The room is at 9.99999ºC

BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

When they do, are all photons inside the room stopped from ever being emitted?

 

[jc456]

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures. I asked for you to prove it. go for it. post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.

Because the two objects stop radiating?

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects and and that's all you'll read. prove me wrong. I give a shit if you think they're radiating at that point, the heat flow is room to objects. and that's it.

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects

I'm only interested in the flow between the objects.

Does it stop?

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period. whatever you wish or think happens between the objects I don't care. I know what is happening and friend, you'll never prove your point. NEVER!!!! BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period.

Didn't you get the memo?
The room is at 9.99999ºC

BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

When they do, are all photons inside the room stopped from ever being emitted?

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room. I give a shit your example, I know heat flows to cold. 2nd law tells me that and every experiment shows it. but your afraid to show an experiment, because that experiment doesn't exist. Like I said already, you have no guts to just say you have no experiment to show two objects at equilibrium would radiate at each other. you don't. chick, chick, chicken!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.

Because the two objects stop radiating?

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects and and that's all you'll read. prove me wrong. I give a shit if you think they're radiating at that point, the heat flow is room to objects. and that's it.

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects

I'm only interested in the flow between the objects.

Does it stop?

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period. whatever you wish or think happens between the objects I don't care. I know what is happening and friend, you'll never prove your point. NEVER!!!! BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period.

Didn't you get the memo?
The room is at 9.99999ºC

BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

When they do, are all photons inside the room stopped from ever being emitted?

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room. I give a shit your example, I know heat flows to cold. 2nd law tells me that and every experiment shows it. but your afraid to show an experiment, because that experiment doesn't exist. Like I said already, you have no guts to just say you have no experiment to show two objects at equilibrium would radiate at each other. you don't. chick, chick, chicken!!!!

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room.

And then, at equilibrium, no more photons are emitted in the room. Ever.

Right?

 

[jc456]

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects and and that's all you'll read. prove me wrong. I give a shit if you think they're radiating at that point, the heat flow is room to objects. and that's it.

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects

I'm only interested in the flow between the objects.

Does it stop?

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period. whatever you wish or think happens between the objects I don't care. I know what is happening and friend, you'll never prove your point. NEVER!!!! BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period.

Didn't you get the memo?
The room is at 9.99999ºC

BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

When they do, are all photons inside the room stopped from ever being emitted?

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room. I give a shit your example, I know heat flows to cold. 2nd law tells me that and every experiment shows it. but your afraid to show an experiment, because that experiment doesn't exist. Like I said already, you have no guts to just say you have no experiment to show two objects at equilibrium would radiate at each other. you don't. chick, chick, chicken!!!!

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room.

And then, at equilibrium, no more photons are emitted in the room. Ever.

Right?

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

 

[ReinyDays]

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures. I asked for you to prove it. go for it. post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.

Get some 0ºC liquid water and add some 0ºC ice in a 0ºC environment ... the thermometer in the water will read 0ºC when the system achieves equilibrium ... not sure what you mean by "post that experiment", this is kitchen counter chemistry ... in this system, there are liquid water molecules giving up energy and freezing on the ice, and there are ice molecules absorbing energy becoming liquid, however the thermometer remains at 0ºC because the net energy flow is 0 ... the melting and freezing occur at the same rate ...

The laws of thermodynamics work for all three types of energy transfer ... including radiation ... this is the principle of how infrared thermometers work ... point it at the coldest object in a system and we'll still get a fairly accurate reading ... this is because the coldest object radiates, just less than all the other objects ... thus we get a net flow into the coldest object ...

 

[jc456]

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures. I asked for you to prove it. go for it. post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.

Get some 0ºC liquid water and add some 0ºC ice in a 0ºC environment ... the thermometer in the water will read 0ºC when the system achieves equilibrium ... not sure what you mean by "post that experiment", this is kitchen counter chemistry ... in this system, there are liquid water molecules giving up energy and freezing on the ice, and there are ice molecules absorbing energy becoming liquid, however the thermometer remains at 0ºC because the net energy flow is 0 ... the melting and freezing occur at the same rate ...

The laws of thermodynamics work for all three types of energy transfer ... including radiation ... this is the principle of how infrared thermometers work ... point it at the coldest object in a system and we'll still get a fairly accurate reading ... this is because the coldest object radiates, just less than all the other objects ... thus we get a net flow into the coldest object ...

that wasn't his scenario, it was two objects at 10C and a room at 9.99999C. Well the two objects will radiate until they reach the 9.99999C temperature. at that point, the temperature would have achieved a state of equilibrium.

What did you think would happen?

 

[jc456]

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures. I asked for you to prove it. go for it. post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.

Get some 0ºC liquid water and add some 0ºC ice in a 0ºC environment ... the thermometer in the water will read 0ºC when the system achieves equilibrium ... not sure what you mean by "post that experiment", this is kitchen counter chemistry ... in this system, there are liquid water molecules giving up energy and freezing on the ice, and there are ice molecules absorbing energy becoming liquid, however the thermometer remains at 0ºC because the net energy flow is 0 ... the melting and freezing occur at the same rate ...

The laws of thermodynamics work for all three types of energy transfer ... including radiation ... this is the principle of how infrared thermometers work ... point it at the coldest object in a system and we'll still get a fairly accurate reading ... this is because the coldest object radiates, just less than all the other objects ... thus we get a net flow into the coldest object ...

let me ask you a question, it seems you're trying to side with ol toddster here. Why do we put insulation inside our walls?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects

I'm only interested in the flow between the objects.

Does it stop?

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period. whatever you wish or think happens between the objects I don't care. I know what is happening and friend, you'll never prove your point. NEVER!!!! BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period.

Didn't you get the memo?
The room is at 9.99999ºC

BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

When they do, are all photons inside the room stopped from ever being emitted?

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room. I give a shit your example, I know heat flows to cold. 2nd law tells me that and every experiment shows it. but your afraid to show an experiment, because that experiment doesn't exist. Like I said already, you have no guts to just say you have no experiment to show two objects at equilibrium would radiate at each other. you don't. chick, chick, chicken!!!!

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room.

And then, at equilibrium, no more photons are emitted in the room. Ever.

Right?

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

Balanced. No photons?

 

[jc456]

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period. whatever you wish or think happens between the objects I don't care. I know what is happening and friend, you'll never prove your point. NEVER!!!! BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period.

Didn't you get the memo?
The room is at 9.99999ºC

BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

When they do, are all photons inside the room stopped from ever being emitted?

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room. I give a shit your example, I know heat flows to cold. 2nd law tells me that and every experiment shows it. but your afraid to show an experiment, because that experiment doesn't exist. Like I said already, you have no guts to just say you have no experiment to show two objects at equilibrium would radiate at each other. you don't. chick, chick, chicken!!!!

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room.

And then, at equilibrium, no more photons are emitted in the room. Ever.

Right?

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

Balanced. No photons?

the definition didn't include them, no.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period.

Didn't you get the memo?
The room is at 9.99999ºC

BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.

When they do, are all photons inside the room stopped from ever being emitted?

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room. I give a shit your example, I know heat flows to cold. 2nd law tells me that and every experiment shows it. but your afraid to show an experiment, because that experiment doesn't exist. Like I said already, you have no guts to just say you have no experiment to show two objects at equilibrium would radiate at each other. you don't. chick, chick, chicken!!!!

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room.

And then, at equilibrium, no more photons are emitted in the room. Ever.

Right?

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

Balanced. No photons?

the definition didn't include them, no.

That's funny.

You should post some good sources that agree with you. Must be millions.
Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate.

 

[ReinyDays]

Who said anything about a third object at 9.99999ºC? ... and why are we using a thermometer with that level of accuracy? ... just a pan of water and ice with a Walmart thermometer ... or go to your local high school and ask the chemistry teacher ...

Insulation in building walls prevents convection ... the fiberglass itself isn't the insulating material, it's the air trapping inside the fiberglass ... that's why building inspectors are supposed to check that the fiberglass isn't stuffed into the cavities ... it needs to remain fluffy and trap as much air as possible ... surprisingly, we can frame our homes with 2x4's, we use 2x6's strictly to install more insulation ...

 

[jc456]

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room. I give a shit your example, I know heat flows to cold. 2nd law tells me that and every experiment shows it. but your afraid to show an experiment, because that experiment doesn't exist. Like I said already, you have no guts to just say you have no experiment to show two objects at equilibrium would radiate at each other. you don't. chick, chick, chicken!!!!

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room.

And then, at equilibrium, no more photons are emitted in the room. Ever.

Right?

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

Balanced. No photons?

the definition didn't include them, no.

That's funny.

You should post some good sources that agree with you. Must be millions.
Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate.

Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate

Everyone, I say toddster can't produce one experiment that shows objects at equilibrium radiate at each other.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

then the two objects would radiate outward to the cooler room.

And then, at equilibrium, no more photons are emitted in the room. Ever.

Right?

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

Balanced. No photons?

the definition didn't include them, no.

That's funny.

You should post some good sources that agree with you. Must be millions.
Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate.

Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate

Everyone, I say toddster can't produce one experiment that shows objects at equilibrium radiate at each other.

Exactly!
Todd won't prove that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is correct.
And you won't prove that it's been wrong all these years.

 

[ReinyDays]

So ... I answered your question ... please answer mine ... how do infrared thermometers work? ...

 

[jc456]

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

Balanced. No photons?

the definition didn't include them, no.

That's funny.

You should post some good sources that agree with you. Must be millions.
Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate.

Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate

Everyone, I say toddster can't produce one experiment that shows objects at equilibrium radiate at each other.

Exactly!
Todd won't prove that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is correct.
And you won't prove that it's been wrong all these years.

there you go, no experiment, just like I said.

t-tc =0 when t=tc.

maybe todd has a different version of SB law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

yep, equilibrium--a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

Balanced. No photons?

the definition didn't include them, no.

That's funny.

You should post some good sources that agree with you. Must be millions.
Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate.

Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate

Everyone, I say toddster can't produce one experiment that shows objects at equilibrium radiate at each other.

Exactly!
Todd won't prove that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is correct.
And you won't prove that it's been wrong all these years.

there you go, no experiment, just like I said.

t-tc =0 when t=tc.

maybe todd has a different version of SB law.

Every version says that objects above 0K radiate.

Where is the SSDD version that says they don't?

 

[jc456]

Who said anything about a third object at 9.99999ºC? ... and why are we using a thermometer with that level of accuracy? ... just a pan of water and ice with a Walmart thermometer ... or go to your local high school and ask the chemistry teacher ...

Insulation in building walls prevents convection ... the fiberglass itself isn't the insulating material, it's the air trapping inside the fiberglass ... that's why building inspectors are supposed to check that the fiberglass isn't stuffed into the cavities ... it needs to remain fluffy and trap as much air as possible ... surprisingly, we can frame our homes with 2x4's, we use 2x6's strictly to install more insulation ...

well son, I answered an ask of me by Todd. Perhaps enhance your reading skills.

You wish for me to give you something you must ask. not sure what larvae you came from, but dude. you're fking off base by a mile to swing at me like that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who said anything about a third object at 9.99999ºC? ... and why are we using a thermometer with that level of accuracy? ... just a pan of water and ice with a Walmart thermometer ... or go to your local high school and ask the chemistry teacher ...

Insulation in building walls prevents convection ... the fiberglass itself isn't the insulating material, it's the air trapping inside the fiberglass ... that's why building inspectors are supposed to check that the fiberglass isn't stuffed into the cavities ... it needs to remain fluffy and trap as much air as possible ... surprisingly, we can frame our homes with 2x4's, we use 2x6's strictly to install more insulation ...

Photons are prohibited from traveling from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
Because the 2nd Law. So says SSDD and jc456 agrees.

Don't worry about it. It's an old argument.

 

[jc456]

the definition didn't include them, no.

That's funny.

You should post some good sources that agree with you. Must be millions.
Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate.

Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate

Everyone, I say toddster can't produce one experiment that shows objects at equilibrium radiate at each other.

Exactly!
Todd won't prove that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is correct.
And you won't prove that it's been wrong all these years.

there you go, no experiment, just like I said.

t-tc =0 when t=tc.

maybe todd has a different version of SB law.

Every version says that objects above 0K radiate.

Where is the SSDD version that says they don't?

sure, again, i agree. when the objects are at equilibrium t=tc, the output is zero. At least in math classes that's how math worked.