Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[Wuwei]

The rest of your post is your typical bullshit...but which part of this statement do you think I am interpreting?

Is that the best you can do? You lost your fighting spirit? Stefan said it loud and clear - simultaneous radiation and absorption. So you think
the meaning of the SB equation has changed since Stefan? Who changed it? Do you have a reference?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I don't see any part of that statement that needs interpreting....I agree with it 100%. You on the other hand only accept it if it doesn't have to actually mean what it says.

I also agree with the SLoT 100% without interpreting. I also agree with the textbook definitions 100%.

.

 

[SSDD]

Is that the best you can do? You lost your fighting spirit? Stefan said it loud and clear - simultaneous radiation and absorption. So you think
the meaning of the SB equation has changed since Stefan? Who changed it? Do you have a reference?

In your wacked out mind, perhaps he did say such a thing...but then you, like climate science itself, heavily interpret, and change the meaning of all data you encounter for the purpose of supporting a narrative...Stefan never said any such thing...

I also agree with the SLoT 100% without interpreting. I also agree with the textbook definitions 100%.

So you agree that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a higher temperature object? That some work is required to make it happen?

 

[Wuwei]

perhaps he did say such a thing.......Stefan never said any such thing...

That's a smart move for an idiot - state something and it's opposite in the same paragraph.

So you agree that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a higher temperature object? That some work is required to make it happen?

Yes I agree. Thermal energy can't do that without violating the law of entropy.

.

 

[SSDD]

perhaps he did say such a thing.......Stefan never said any such thing...

That's a smart move for an idiot - state something and it's opposite in the same paragraph.

The concept of honesty entirely escapes you...doesnt it?

Taking a part of a statement and presenting it as a quote is lying...here, let me provide the entire statement..

"In your wacked out mind, perhaps he did say such a thing...but then you, like climate science itself, heavily interpret, and change the meaning of all data you encounter for the purpose of supporting a narrative..."

See hoe=w that works? I never said that he said such a thing other than in your wacked out mind...You are becoming more boring than toddster.

Yes I agree. Thermal energy can't do that without violating the law of entropy..

The statement doesn't make qualifications such as thermal..it says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....energy being any sort of energy...so do you accept it with qualifications or do you only accept it if it doesn't have to mean what it says?

The first part of the statement addresses thermal energy when it says that heat will not flow from a cool object to a warmer object without work having been done to achieve the flow...the second part of the statement simply addresses energy...any sort of energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

perhaps he did say such a thing.......Stefan never said any such thing...

That's a smart move for an idiot - state something and it's opposite in the same paragraph.

The concept of honesty entirely escapes you...doesnt it?

Taking a part of a statement and presenting it as a quote is lying...here, let me provide the entire statement..

"In your wacked out mind, perhaps he did say such a thing...but then you, like climate science itself, heavily interpret, and change the meaning of all data you encounter for the purpose of supporting a narrative..."

See hoe=w that works? I never said that he said such a thing other than in your wacked out mind...You are becoming more boring than toddster.

Yes I agree. Thermal energy can't do that without violating the law of entropy..

The statement doesn't make qualifications such as thermal..it says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....energy being any sort of energy...so do you accept it with qualifications or do you only accept it if it doesn't have to mean what it says?

it says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....energy being any sort of energy...

You're lying.
That's why you haven't posted a single source that backs up your claim that photons only move from warmer matter to cooler matter.

 

[Wuwei]

Taking a part of a statement and presenting it as a quote is lying...here, let me provide the entire statement..

"In your wacked out mind, perhaps he did say such a thing...but then you, like climate science itself, heavily interpret, and change the meaning of all data you encounter for the purpose of supporting a narrative..."

Now that is really funny and ironic. You accuse me of quoting out of context, you do exactly the same thing. Here is the full quote with the highlighted phrases that make it ironic. You left out the second phrase.

In your wacked out mind, perhaps he did say such a thing...but then you, like climate science itself, heavily interpret, and change the meaning of all data you encounter for the purpose of supporting a narrative...Stefan never said any such thing...

Oh yes, Stefan said such a thing.

The statement doesn't make qualifications such as thermal..it says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....energy being any sort of energy...so do you accept it with qualifications or do you only accept it if it doesn't have to mean what it says?

The first part of the statement addresses thermal energy when it says that heat will not flow from a cool object to a warmer object without work having been done to achieve the flow...the second part of the statement simply addresses energy...any sort of energy.

Any sort of energy? Particles from a radioactive substance cannot emit from a cold rock? Your interpretation leads to idiocy.

.

 

[SSDD]

Taking a part of a statement and presenting it as a quote is lying...here, let me provide the entire statement..

"In your wacked out mind, perhaps he did say such a thing...but then you, like climate science itself, heavily interpret, and change the meaning of all data you encounter for the purpose of supporting a narrative..."

Now that is really funny and ironic. You accuse me of quoting out of context, you do exactly the same thing. Here is the full quote with the highlighted phrases that make it ironic. You left out the second phrase.

In your wacked out mind, perhaps he did say such a thing...but then you, like climate science itself, heavily interpret, and change the meaning of all data you encounter for the purpose of supporting a narrative...Stefan never said any such thing...

Oh yes, Stefan said such a thing.

The statement doesn't make qualifications such as thermal..it says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....energy being any sort of energy...so do you accept it with qualifications or do you only accept it if it doesn't have to mean what it says?

The first part of the statement addresses thermal energy when it says that heat will not flow from a cool object to a warmer object without work having been done to achieve the flow...the second part of the statement simply addresses energy...any sort of energy.

Any sort of energy? Particles from a radioactive substance cannot emit from a cold rock? Your interpretation leads to idiocy.

.

No interpretation...and radiation is all about frequency...what is the frequency of the energy radiating from the rock vs the frequency of IR radiating from the surface of the earth? Or the frequency of IR radiating from your body...or any thing whatsoever radiating in IR wavelengths?

 

[Crick]

Sixteen ways from Sunday, your magic photons require magic and magic is idiocy

 

[Wuwei]

No interpretation...and radiation is all about frequency...what is the frequency of the energy radiating from the rock vs the frequency of IR radiating from the surface of the earth? Or the frequency of IR radiating from your body...or any thing whatsoever radiating in IR wavelengths?

The point is particles from a radioactive substance emit from a cold rock. Your rambling, "radiation is all about frequency" does not address the point. You are digressing again.

 

[SSDD]

Sixteen ways from Sunday, your magic photons require magic and magic is idiocy

Nothing magic about obeying the laws of physics...interesting that you think magic is required....

 

[SSDD]

No interpretation...and radiation is all about frequency...what is the frequency of the energy radiating from the rock vs the frequency of IR radiating from the surface of the earth? Or the frequency of IR radiating from your body...or any thing whatsoever radiating in IR wavelengths?

The point is particles from a radioactive substance emit from a cold rock. Your rambling, "radiation is all about frequency" does not address the point. You are digressing again.

Sorry this is all so difficult for you...tell you what...you go ahead and just make up both sides of the discussion and save me the time and trouble of holding up one side of a discussion that grew boring weeks ago. The routine is established...the second law says what it says...means what it means and you want it to mean something else...and will interpret whatever you need in order to maintain your narrative.

Is that ever going to change? Because the second law isn't going to change and my position is based on what it says rather than some nutty interpretation...If it isn't going to change...why bother continuing?

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry this is all so difficult for you...tell you what...you go ahead and just make up both sides of the discussion and save me the time and trouble of holding up one side of a discussion that grew boring weeks ago. The routine is established...the second law says what it says...means what it means and you want it to mean something else...and will interpret whatever you need in order to maintain your narrative.

Is that ever going to change? Because the second law isn't going to change and my position is based on what it says rather than some nutty interpretation...If it isn't going to change...why bother continuing?

OK. I will make up both sides of the discussion.

SSDD says: You fucking idiot; nuclear radiation can not emanate from an ore unless it is heated to above ambient temperature because, Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Wuwei replies: Your physics is really quite bizarre.

.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry this is all so difficult for you...tell you what...you go ahead and just make up both sides of the discussion and save me the time and trouble of holding up one side of a discussion that grew boring weeks ago. The routine is established...the second law says what it says...means what it means and you want it to mean something else...and will interpret whatever you need in order to maintain your narrative.

Is that ever going to change? Because the second law isn't going to change and my position is based on what it says rather than some nutty interpretation...If it isn't going to change...why bother continuing?

OK. I will make up both sides of the discussion.

SSDD says: You fucking idiot; nuclear radiation can not emanate from an ore unless it is heated to above ambient temperature because, Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Wuwei replies: Your physics is really quite bizarre.

.

In the future, before you bring up the same shit....refer to the first time the topic was covered..or the second...or the third...or the fourth...I won't be going over it again...nor will I be looking up the original arguments for you. I will prepare a stock cut and paste referral back to any of the multiple times the topic has been discussed for when you get the idea in your nutty brain that somehow you have won the discussion via sheer tedium.

When you get something new, let me know....or when they change the second law of thermodynamics to state that energy can spontaneously move from a less organized state to a more organized state...do let me know.

 

[Billy_Bob]

or when they change the second law of thermodynamics to state that energy can spontaneously move from a less organized state to a more organized state...do let me know.

These people think a photon from a less organized (lower power and thus lower energy) state is capable of warming a more energized state (higher power more energized state).



Quantum Mechanics (QM) theroy precludes this from happening. In fact it identifies the photon as a piece of matter which must be warmed by the higher energized state matter before it can be re-emitted at the higher energized state. This means it must consume energy cooling the matter. QM QUESTIONS HOWEVER a black-body being able to absorb matter resonating at a lower frequency than itself.

Until QM and other theory's identify what a photon is and they observe its responses, we do not know how a BB will respond. The experiment we just finished failed to slow the cooling of the BB when lower energized photons were introduced. From what we observed, it had little effect on keeping the BB warmer and slowing cooling, until it reached the thermal output level of the lower energized matter.

WE found some interesting things over two years... I have more questions than answers about what we found and why what we found was happening. What we found does not mesh with many of the equations used today.

 

[IanC]

Quantum Mechanics (QM) theroy precludes this from happening. In fact it identifies the photon as a piece of matter which must be warmed by the higher energized state matter before it can be re-emitted at the higher energized state. This means it must consume energy cooling the matter. QM QUESTIONS HOWEVER a black-body being able to absorb matter resonating at a lower frequency than itself

Just look at the utter stupidity of this comment! Hahahahaha, this is not the first time that BillyBoob has loudly proclaimed that light is matter.

How do you converse with someone so profoundly stupid?

 

[Wuwei]

In the future, before you bring up the same shit....refer to the first time the topic was covered..or the second...or the third...or the fourth...I won't be going over it again...nor will I be looking up the original arguments for you. I will prepare a stock cut and paste referral back to any of the multiple times the topic has been discussed for when you get the idea in your nutty brain that somehow you have won the discussion via sheer tedium.

When you get something new, let me know....or when they change the second law of thermodynamics to state that energy can spontaneously move from a less organized state to a more organized state...do let me know.

A stock cut and paste? How is that any different than what you have already been doing over the past years.

Here are some stock cut and pastes you should consider.
When you invent a theory that says why photons can violate quantum mechanics when they aren't allowed to move in certain directions paste your answer.

When you can explain that every experiment that man does is never spontaneous please paste it.

Let us know what work is done since you stated, "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."

Let us know where in the CMB turns into resonant frequencies in the path as it hits the earth. Be sure and paste that too.

Sure. Run away.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Just look at the utter stupidity of this comment! Hahahahaha, this is not the first time that BillyBoob has loudly proclaimed that light is matter.

How do you converse with someone so profoundly stupid?

The answer is not to respond to a troll at that level who is baiting you. Yes it is profoundly stupid... just monkeys on a typewriter.

 

[IanC]

These people think a photon from a less organized (lower power and thus lower energy) state is capable of warming a more energized state (higher power more energized state).

I know I have shown this before a dozen times but there may be new readers.

This graph shows the type and amount of radiation coming off a blackbody at two temperatures 20C apart.

The range is almost identical, with the warmer object being capable of occasionally produciñg a slightly higher photon that the other cannot. Otherwise every wavelength is in common with the other. You cannot tell the difference in temperature by the type of radiation without sampling a huge number of photons.

But you can tell the temperature by measuring the amount of any one particular wavelength, and comparing it to the amount expected for different temperatures. Again you are sampling huge amounts of photons.

You cannot tell the temperature of an object by a single photon, (but you could get an estimate of its lowest range). There is no way that another object can accept or reject a single photon because of the temperature of the emitting object. There is no information on the photon. A 15 micron photon could be coming off an object at -80C, or it could be coming off the surface of the Sun.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes, I agree, but our local "doctoral candidate" is a brick wall.

 

[IanC]

Yes, I agree, but our local "doctoral candidate" is a brick wall.

They seem to think any particular temperature has only one emitted wavelength. SSDD wouldn't respond directly but he implies that water only has one velocity for molecules at a certain temperature even though that would preclude evaporation.

These guys don't understand that changing physics in one area causes big problems down the road in another area.