Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[jc456]

I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics....I simply don't feel the need to interpret the actual physical laws in order to conform to the dictates of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

For you I would use the term "fake physics" rather than "special" or "unique". Mathematical models give precision to physics. You throw away the precise meaning of the models and substitute colloquial meanings. In your quest to reinterpret actual physics you continually create self contradiction.

.

Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own,
realized that the 2nd Law was misunderstood.

He's a delicate genius.

The only one, "not fooled by instrumentation".

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero. It's amazing you don't understand zero.

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero.

Yup, net power will be zero. Never denied it.

then how is SSDD wrong? you have yet to accommodate any request for observed measured evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have no "special" or "unique" form of physics....I simply don't feel the need to interpret the actual physical laws in order to conform to the dictates of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

For you I would use the term "fake physics" rather than "special" or "unique". Mathematical models give precision to physics. You throw away the precise meaning of the models and substitute colloquial meanings. In your quest to reinterpret actual physics you continually create self contradiction.

.

Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own,
realized that the 2nd Law was misunderstood.

He's a delicate genius.

The only one, "not fooled by instrumentation".

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero. It's amazing you don't understand zero.

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero.

Yup, net power will be zero. Never denied it.

then how is SSDD wrong?

He claims objects dial down their emissions, based on the temperature of nearby objects.

 

[jc456]

For you I would use the term "fake physics" rather than "special" or "unique". Mathematical models give precision to physics. You throw away the precise meaning of the models and substitute colloquial meanings. In your quest to reinterpret actual physics you continually create self contradiction.

.

Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own,
realized that the 2nd Law was misunderstood.

He's a delicate genius.

The only one, "not fooled by instrumentation".

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero. It's amazing you don't understand zero.

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero.

Yup, net power will be zero. Never denied it.

then how is SSDD wrong?

He claims objects dial down their emissions, based on the temperature of nearby objects.

well zero is zero. it's there based on math.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, but every scientist in the world is wrong about equilibrium, because SSDD, on his own,
realized that the 2nd Law was misunderstood.

He's a delicate genius.

The only one, "not fooled by instrumentation".

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero. It's amazing you don't understand zero.

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero.

Yup, net power will be zero. Never denied it.

then how is SSDD wrong?

He claims objects dial down their emissions, based on the temperature of nearby objects.

well zero is zero. it's there based on math.

There is no reduction of emissions.
If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, or causality, you'd see that.

Don't worry about it. You'll hurt yourself.

 

[jc456]

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero. It's amazing you don't understand zero.

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero.

Yup, net power will be zero. Never denied it.

then how is SSDD wrong?

He claims objects dial down their emissions, based on the temperature of nearby objects.

well zero is zero. it's there based on math.

There is no reduction of emissions.
If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, or causality, you'd see that.

Don't worry about it. You'll hurt yourself.

well again, I abide by the 2nd law that says energy will not flow from cool to hot. And SB says t=tc equals zero. no emission.

 

[ReinyDays]

Ah ... you two seem to understand where Tc comes from ... any chance you can explain it to me? ... feel free to use small words, I make no claim to expertise in this matter ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

again, if T=Tc the answer will always be Zero.

Yup, net power will be zero. Never denied it.

then how is SSDD wrong?

He claims objects dial down their emissions, based on the temperature of nearby objects.

well zero is zero. it's there based on math.

There is no reduction of emissions.
If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, or causality, you'd see that.

Don't worry about it. You'll hurt yourself.

well again, I abide by the 2nd law that says energy will not flow from cool to hot. And SB says t=tc equals zero. no emission.

You don't need to repeat your confusion, we've already seen it multiple times.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah ... you two seem to understand where Tc comes from ... any chance you can explain it to me? ... feel free to use small words, I make no claim to expertise in this matter ...

T is the temperature of the emitting object.
Tc is the temperature of the surroundings.

In the real world, the object emits to the surroundings while the surroundings emit to the object.
Subtract to find the net power.

In SSDD world, the emitting object magically senses the temperature of the (cooler) non-emitting surroundings to dial down its emissions.

 

[jc456]

then how is SSDD wrong?

He claims objects dial down their emissions, based on the temperature of nearby objects.

well zero is zero. it's there based on math.

There is no reduction of emissions.
If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, or causality, you'd see that.

Don't worry about it. You'll hurt yourself.

well again, I abide by the 2nd law that says energy will not flow from cool to hot. And SB says t=tc equals zero. no emission.

You don't need to repeat your confusion, we've already seen it multiple times.

and still today, not one observed measured piece of evidence posted by you!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He claims objects dial down their emissions, based on the temperature of nearby objects.

well zero is zero. it's there based on math.

There is no reduction of emissions.
If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, or causality, you'd see that.

Don't worry about it. You'll hurt yourself.

well again, I abide by the 2nd law that says energy will not flow from cool to hot. And SB says t=tc equals zero. no emission.

You don't need to repeat your confusion, we've already seen it multiple times.

and still today, not one observed measured piece of evidence posted by you!!!

Right, no evidence behind Stefan-Boltzmann. DURR

 

[jc456]

well zero is zero. it's there based on math.

There is no reduction of emissions.
If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, or causality, you'd see that.

Don't worry about it. You'll hurt yourself.

well again, I abide by the 2nd law that says energy will not flow from cool to hot. And SB says t=tc equals zero. no emission.

You don't need to repeat your confusion, we've already seen it multiple times.

and still today, not one observed measured piece of evidence posted by you!!!

Right, no evidence behind Stefan-Boltzmann. DURR

post the piece that shows energy flowing from cool to hot. I've been waiting. you fail every day.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no reduction of emissions.
If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, or causality, you'd see that.

Don't worry about it. You'll hurt yourself.

well again, I abide by the 2nd law that says energy will not flow from cool to hot. And SB says t=tc equals zero. no emission.

You don't need to repeat your confusion, we've already seen it multiple times.

and still today, not one observed measured piece of evidence posted by you!!!

Right, no evidence behind Stefan-Boltzmann. DURR

post the piece that shows energy flowing from cool to hot. I've been waiting. you fail every day.

Plug in your variables. This formula will show you the power radiated by the cool object.

 

[Wuwei]

Ah ... you two seem to understand where Tc comes from ... any chance you can explain it to me? ... feel free to use small words, I make no claim to expertise in this matter ...

T is the temperature of the emitting object.
Tc is the temperature of the surroundings.

In the real world, the object emits to the surroundings while the surroundings emit to the object.
Subtract to find the net power.

In SSDD world, the emitting object magically senses the temperature of the (cooler) non-emitting surroundings to dial down its emissions.

SSDD also thinks that Tc must always be smaller than T. In other word he thinks the background must always be colder than the object at temperature T for the formula to work. He has no formula for what happens in the case where the background is warmer than the object. That is because he ignores the premise that the object can both radiate and absorb energy. It is really quite ludicrous.

.

 

[jc456]

well again, I abide by the 2nd law that says energy will not flow from cool to hot. And SB says t=tc equals zero. no emission.

You don't need to repeat your confusion, we've already seen it multiple times.

and still today, not one observed measured piece of evidence posted by you!!!

Right, no evidence behind Stefan-Boltzmann. DURR

post the piece that shows energy flowing from cool to hot. I've been waiting. you fail every day.

View attachment 284593

Plug in your variables. This formula will show you the power radiated by the cool object.

hey dude, I stated many times, I don't have any qualms with that equation. none. The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't need to repeat your confusion, we've already seen it multiple times.

and still today, not one observed measured piece of evidence posted by you!!!

Right, no evidence behind Stefan-Boltzmann. DURR

post the piece that shows energy flowing from cool to hot. I've been waiting. you fail every day.

View attachment 284593

Plug in your variables. This formula will show you the power radiated by the cool object.

hey dude, I stated many times, I don't have any qualms with that equation. none. The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

Net is zero. Why do you disagree?

 

[jc456]

and still today, not one observed measured piece of evidence posted by you!!!

Right, no evidence behind Stefan-Boltzmann. DURR

post the piece that shows energy flowing from cool to hot. I've been waiting. you fail every day.

View attachment 284593

Plug in your variables. This formula will show you the power radiated by the cool object.

hey dude, I stated many times, I don't have any qualms with that equation. none. The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

Net is zero. Why do you disagree?

P= zero. yep!! no power.

 

[SSDD]

You don't need to repeat your confusion, we've already seen it multiple times.

and still today, not one observed measured piece of evidence posted by you!!!

Right, no evidence behind Stefan-Boltzmann. DURR

post the piece that shows energy flowing from cool to hot. I've been waiting. you fail every day.

View attachment 284593

Plug in your variables. This formula will show you the power radiated by the cool object.

hey dude, I stated many times, I don't have any qualms with that equation. none. The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

The whole SB equation is nothing more than a strawman anyway...The SB equation is not applicable to a gas since a gas has no area...The A in the equation is for area...good luck calculating the area of a gas....and then calculating how much of any given volume (which is not area) is actually radiating...

 

[ReinyDays]

Lucky thing we're applying SB to the surface of the Earth ... you've been told this a dozen times ... we use NS in the atmosphere ...

 

[ReinyDays]

T is the temperature of the emitting object.
Tc is the temperature of the surroundings.

In the real world, the object emits to the surroundings while the surroundings emit to the object.
Subtract to find the net power.

In SSDD world, the emitting object magically senses the temperature of the (cooler) non-emitting surroundings to dial down its emissions.

∆P = eoA(T^4 - Tc^4) then?

Smells like the crap climatologists like playing in ... no offense ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

T is the temperature of the emitting object.
Tc is the temperature of the surroundings.

In the real world, the object emits to the surroundings while the surroundings emit to the object.
Subtract to find the net power.

In SSDD world, the emitting object magically senses the temperature of the (cooler) non-emitting surroundings to dial down its emissions.

∆P = eoA(T^4 - Tc^4) then?

Smells like the crap climatologists like playing in ... no offense ...

∆P = eoA(T^4 - Tc^4) then?

Yes. No need for objects to predict the future or remotely, magically determine the temperature of their surroundings.