Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[jc456]

to cooler objects.

Cool (undefined) flows to cooler objects?

What are you trying, so poorly, to say?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones. I thought that was the discussion. hmmmmm you lost?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones.

Now objects are flowing? Weird.

I thought that was the discussion.

Your confusion is become more obvious.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool. you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool.

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

here tell this guy he's wrong

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.

what does this say?

P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)

your buddy ole wuwei posted it. what's that one word there, kind of foggy I supposed, But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....emitted!!!!!!

 

[jc456]

.if you don't see a Tc term, then the equation implies that the black body is radiating into a vacuum. If you don't see an e term, then the equation implies that you are talking about a theoretical ideal black body..

Suppose the object is colder than the surround. The resulting negative value of power P then refers to how much the object absorbs.

Again...you fail to understand the fundamental assumption of the SB law...that being that the radiator is always...ALWAYS radiating into cooler surroundings...

It is assumed that scientists know. Apparently you don't know what the equation is saying even though we gave you the meaning countless times.

.

And clearly many do not...since the SB law is used routinely to determine radiation emitting from the atmosphere...

And look who is talking...how many pages did you resist actually stating in english what the equation said? ...was it 6 pages or was it 10 pages..and when you finally said in plain english what the equation was stating, you finally admitted that it was saying precisely what I had been saying that it said...then you immediately reverted to your interpretation..

Again...you fail to understand the fundamental assumption of the SB law...that being that the radiator is always...ALWAYS radiating into cooler surroundings...

isn't that why the 'T' is always the leading digit in the equation ahead of the minus sign and then the 'Tc'? It is truly hilarious, they don't understand the equation design.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cool (undefined) flows to cooler objects?

What are you trying, so poorly, to say?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones. I thought that was the discussion. hmmmmm you lost?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones.

Now objects are flowing? Weird.

I thought that was the discussion.

Your confusion is become more obvious.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool. you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool.

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

here tell this guy he's wrong

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.

what does this say?

P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)

your buddy ole wuwei posted it. what's that one word there, kind of foggy I supposed, But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....emitted!!!!!!

But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....

It doesn't say "hot flows" or "cool flows"?

 

[jc456]

warmer objects flow to cooler ones. I thought that was the discussion. hmmmmm you lost?

warmer objects flow to cooler ones.

Now objects are flowing? Weird.

I thought that was the discussion.

Your confusion is become more obvious.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool. you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool.

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

here tell this guy he's wrong

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.

what does this say?

P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)

your buddy ole wuwei posted it. what's that one word there, kind of foggy I supposed, But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....emitted!!!!!!

But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....

It doesn't say "hot flows" or "cool flows"?

what does flow mean in your world exactly? Rate infers moving.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

warmer objects flow to cooler ones.

Now objects are flowing? Weird.

I thought that was the discussion.

Your confusion is become more obvious.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool. you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool.

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

here tell this guy he's wrong

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.

what does this say?

P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)

your buddy ole wuwei posted it. what's that one word there, kind of foggy I supposed, But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....emitted!!!!!!

But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....

It doesn't say "hot flows" or "cool flows"?

what does flow mean in your world exactly? Rate infers moving.

What does "hot flows" mean in your world exactly?

What does "cool flows" mean in your world exactly?​

 

[SSDD]

warmer objects flow to cooler ones.

Now objects are flowing? Weird.

I thought that was the discussion.

Your confusion is become more obvious.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool. you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool.

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

here tell this guy he's wrong

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.

what does this say?

P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)

your buddy ole wuwei posted it. what's that one word there, kind of foggy I supposed, But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....emitted!!!!!!

But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....

It doesn't say "hot flows" or "cool flows"?

what does flow mean in your world exactly? Rate infers moving.

To them, it means whatever it needs to mean in order to support their beliefs...actual definitions, and meanings are optional to them...its that whole interpretation thing doncha know....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said hot didn't flow to cool. you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool.

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

here tell this guy he's wrong

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.

what does this say?

P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)

your buddy ole wuwei posted it. what's that one word there, kind of foggy I supposed, But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....emitted!!!!!!

But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....

It doesn't say "hot flows" or "cool flows"?

what does flow mean in your world exactly? Rate infers moving.

To them, it means whatever it needs to mean in order to support their beliefs...actual definitions, and meanings are optional to them...its that whole interpretation thing doncha know....

To them, it means whatever it needs to mean in order to support their beliefs..

Like the definition of spontaneous. DURR

 

[jc456]

I never said hot didn't flow to cool. you're confused again as usual.

here tell this guy he's wrong

Clausius statement: It is impossible for heat to move of itself from a lower-temperature reservoir to a higher-temperature reservoir. That is, heat transfer can only occur spontaneously in the direction of temperature decrease.

I never said hot didn't flow to cool.

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

here tell this guy he's wrong

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.

what does this say?

P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)

your buddy ole wuwei posted it. what's that one word there, kind of foggy I supposed, But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....emitted!!!!!!

But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....

It doesn't say "hot flows" or "cool flows"?

what does flow mean in your world exactly? Rate infers moving.

What does "hot flows" mean in your world exactly?

What does "cool flows" mean in your world exactly?​

flow
verb
\ ˈflō \
flowed; flowing; flows
Definition of flow
(Entry 1 of 2)

intransitive verb

1a(1): to issue or move in a streamrivers flow into the sea
(2): CIRCULATE
b: to move with a continual change of place among the constituent particles

 

[jc456]

Hard photon flow and photon-photon correlation in intermediate...

Hard photon flow and photon-photon correlation in intermediate energy heavy-ion collisions
Y. G. Ma, G. H. Liu, X. Z. Cai, D. Q. Fang, W. Guo, W. Q. Shen, W. D. Tian, H. W. Wang
(Submitted on 1 Mar 2012)
Hard photons emitted from energetic heavy ion collisions are very interesting since they do not experience nuclear interaction, and therefore they are useful to explore properties of nuclear matter. We investigated hard photon production and its properties in intermediate energy heavy-ion collisions with the help of the Blotzmann-Uehling-Ulenbeck model. Two components of hard photons are discussed: direct and thermal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said hot didn't flow to cool.

Where did you hear that "hot flows"?
Where did you hear that "cool flows"?

You're speaking non-scientific gibberish.

here tell this guy he's wrong

He's not wrong. It's your misunderstanding of his statement that's wrong.

what does this say?

P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)

your buddy ole wuwei posted it. what's that one word there, kind of foggy I supposed, But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....emitted!!!!!!

But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....

It doesn't say "hot flows" or "cool flows"?

what does flow mean in your world exactly? Rate infers moving.

What does "hot flows" mean in your world exactly?

What does "cool flows" mean in your world exactly?​

flow
verb
\ ˈflō \
flowed; flowing; flows
Definition of flow
(Entry 1 of 2)

intransitive verb

1a(1): to issue or move in a streamrivers flow into the sea
(2): CIRCULATE
b: to move with a continual change of place among the constituent particles

So "hot flows" with a continual change of place among the constituent particles?

 

[jc456]

what does this say?

P = net heat flow rate [W] emitted (+) or absorbed (−)

your buddy ole wuwei posted it. what's that one word there, kind of foggy I supposed, But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....emitted!!!!!!

But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....

It doesn't say "hot flows" or "cool flows"?

what does flow mean in your world exactly? Rate infers moving.

What does "hot flows" mean in your world exactly?

What does "cool flows" mean in your world exactly?​

flow
verb
\ ˈflō \
flowed; flowing; flows
Definition of flow
(Entry 1 of 2)

intransitive verb

1a(1): to issue or move in a streamrivers flow into the sea
(2): CIRCULATE
b: to move with a continual change of place among the constituent particles

So "hot flows" with a continual change of place among the constituent particles?

sure it's leaving one place to another. to move!!! right? the heat moves from the hot object to the cold object. Right? I mean, isn't that why the earth gets warm?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But on my screen, it says FLOW Rate.....

It doesn't say "hot flows" or "cool flows"?

what does flow mean in your world exactly? Rate infers moving.

What does "hot flows" mean in your world exactly?

What does "cool flows" mean in your world exactly?​

flow
verb
\ ˈflō \
flowed; flowing; flows
Definition of flow
(Entry 1 of 2)

intransitive verb

1a(1): to issue or move in a streamrivers flow into the sea
(2): CIRCULATE
b: to move with a continual change of place among the constituent particles

So "hot flows" with a continual change of place among the constituent particles?

sure it's leaving one place to another. to move!!! right? the heat moves from the hot object to the cold object. Right? I mean, isn't that why the earth gets warm?

sure it's leaving one place to another. to move!!! right?

Hot is leaving one place to another?

Link?

 

[jc456]

what does flow mean in your world exactly? Rate infers moving.

What does "hot flows" mean in your world exactly?

What does "cool flows" mean in your world exactly?​

flow
verb
\ ˈflō \
flowed; flowing; flows
Definition of flow
(Entry 1 of 2)

intransitive verb

1a(1): to issue or move in a streamrivers flow into the sea
(2): CIRCULATE
b: to move with a continual change of place among the constituent particles

So "hot flows" with a continual change of place among the constituent particles?

sure it's leaving one place to another. to move!!! right? the heat moves from the hot object to the cold object. Right? I mean, isn't that why the earth gets warm?

sure it's leaving one place to another. to move!!! right?

Hot is leaving one place to another?

Link?

nope, I gave all you get. take your game to another.

BTW, cool objects don't radiate to a warm objects until you prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does "hot flows" mean in your world exactly?

What does "cool flows" mean in your world exactly?​

flow
verb
\ ˈflō \
flowed; flowing; flows
Definition of flow
(Entry 1 of 2)

intransitive verb

1a(1): to issue or move in a streamrivers flow into the sea
(2): CIRCULATE
b: to move with a continual change of place among the constituent particles

So "hot flows" with a continual change of place among the constituent particles?

sure it's leaving one place to another. to move!!! right? the heat moves from the hot object to the cold object. Right? I mean, isn't that why the earth gets warm?

sure it's leaving one place to another. to move!!! right?

Hot is leaving one place to another?

Link?

nope, I gave all you get. take your game to another.

BTW, cool objects don't radiate to a warm objects until you prove it.

nope, I gave all you get.

Right, you said "hot flows" and "cool flows".

I've been laughing ever since.

 

[ReinyDays]

I will go with Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot who thought that the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of incoming solar radiation, gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density and heat capacities....they all predicted temperature gradients in columns of air but lacked instrumentation sensitive enough to verify the predictions...such temperature gradients have been observed, measured, and repeated in the laboratory by Graeff.

Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot.....who was Arrhenius anyway and why does his hypothesis still lack any observed, measured support after all these years?

Those are some great names in science ... easy to throw out there without any understanding of what they contributed ... but I'll bite, what did they say? ... let's make this simpler; after one second, our square meter of the Earth's surface absorbs 1,000 joules of energy ... Clausius tells us this can't stand ... where does this 1,000 J go, and which force drives it there? ...

 

[jc456]

flow
verb
\ ˈflō \
flowed; flowing; flows
Definition of flow
(Entry 1 of 2)

intransitive verb

1a(1): to issue or move in a streamrivers flow into the sea
(2): CIRCULATE
b: to move with a continual change of place among the constituent particles

So "hot flows" with a continual change of place among the constituent particles?

sure it's leaving one place to another. to move!!! right? the heat moves from the hot object to the cold object. Right? I mean, isn't that why the earth gets warm?

sure it's leaving one place to another. to move!!! right?

Hot is leaving one place to another?

Link?

nope, I gave all you get. take your game to another.

BTW, cool objects don't radiate to a warm objects until you prove it.

nope, I gave all you get.

Right, you said "hot flows" and "cool flows".

I've been laughing ever since.

I did!! thanks for quoting me.

you think I care, and that has me on the floor!!!

 

[jc456]

I will go with Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot who thought that the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of incoming solar radiation, gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density and heat capacities....they all predicted temperature gradients in columns of air but lacked instrumentation sensitive enough to verify the predictions...such temperature gradients have been observed, measured, and repeated in the laboratory by Graeff.

Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot.....who was Arrhenius anyway and why does his hypothesis still lack any observed, measured support after all these years?

Those are some great names in science ... easy to throw out there without any understanding of what they contributed ... but I'll bite, what did they say? ... let's make this simpler; after one second, our square meter of the Earth's surface absorbs 1,000 joules of energy ... Clausius tells us this can't stand ... where does this 1,000 J go, and which force drives it there? ...

 

[gfm7175]

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again

So which is it?

2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Stefan-Boltzmann thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

If you ever pull your head out of your ass, by all means link where I said anything about "heating" the sun.

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

He simply doesn't get it... If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy, as colder areas would be getting colder and warmer areas would be getting warmer... That denies thermodynamics. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. Entropy increases. Hotter areas cool off and colder areas warm up...

If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy,

What about photons flowing from 10C to 20C? Is that allowed?

Yes, photons can be emitted in all directions, but that does not magickally make heat flow backwards. We are speaking about a continuous process, not a sequence of processes. The Sun heats the surface, the surface heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere heats space. Heat cannot suddenly and magickally flow from the atmosphere to the surface again...

 

[jc456]

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

He simply doesn't get it... If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy, as colder areas would be getting colder and warmer areas would be getting warmer... That denies thermodynamics. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. Entropy increases. Hotter areas cool off and colder areas warm up...

If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy,

What about photons flowing from 10C to 20C? Is that allowed?

Yes, photons can be emitted in all directions, but that does not magickally make heat flow backwards. We are speaking about a continuous process, not a sequence of processes. The Sun heats the surface, the surface heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere heats space. Heat cannot suddenly and magickally flow from the atmosphere to the surface again...

sure it can, just look at the evidence. oh wait, there isn't any, uh-oh

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

He simply doesn't get it... If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy, as colder areas would be getting colder and warmer areas would be getting warmer... That denies thermodynamics. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold. Entropy increases. Hotter areas cool off and colder areas warm up...

If heat COULD flow from 10C to 20C, then that would be decreasing entropy,

What about photons flowing from 10C to 20C? Is that allowed?

Yes, photons can be emitted in all directions, but that does not magickally make heat flow backwards. We are speaking about a continuous process, not a sequence of processes. The Sun heats the surface, the surface heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere heats space. Heat cannot suddenly and magickally flow from the atmosphere to the surface again...

Yes, photons can be emitted in all directions

Excellent!

Don't tell SSDD and jc456.

but that does not magickally make heat flow backwards.

Obviously.

Heat cannot suddenly and magickally flow from the atmosphere to the surface again...

But photons from the atmosphere can move toward the surface. Right?