Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change

[Toddsterpatriot]

No data is required to answer the questions I pose. The same situation occurs in any room lit by an incandescent light bulb. It is Mamooth's led flashlight shining into a hot oven. It is another of the thousands of common situations that show SSDD's ideas about thermodynamics are utter nonsense based on gross misunderstandings. And given that, his ideas about AGW, with which many of you concur, are of an equivalent merit.

And your attempt to detour the conversation is noted.

And given that, his ideas about AGW, with which many of you concur, are of an equivalent merit.

Nope. His confusion about the 2nd Law does not mean we should waste trillions on less reliable energy or crush our economy, just because you think CO2 is the worst thing ever.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you find that you must lie,

Where did I lie? Be specific.

When did I ever say that an object stops emitting when a warmer object approaches? I said that a cool object doesn't emit towards a warmer object.

What did I mischaracterize? Be specific.

See above for an example. Suggesting that I suppose some intelligence or choice is involved in the movement of energy. Again, does a rock have any choice but to fall when you drop it?

argument is that an object at 600 C will emit photons in all directions but if an 800 C object approaches, will emit photons in every other direction except toward that warmer object.

And you have a problem with that? You can see that sort of thing happening around you if you look.

not based on the photons "knowing" the temperature of surrounding objects?

No, that's based on them not having any choice but to move in the direction in which they are radiated. Do you think that communications engineers can just point antennas and arrays in whatever direction they wish without taking energy coming from other arrays and dishes into consideration? What would happen if a dish with a weaker signal were pointed towards a dish with a stronger signal? Would you receive the weaker signal on the other side of the stronger dish? Would you receive it immediately in front of the stronger dish? Is there any sort of choice, or knowing on the part of the weaker signal that it can't transmit over the stronger signal from the other dish?

This whole thing is a failure of your imagination...You are like a little child trying to prove that the laws of nature don't actually mean what they say. The second law says that energy won't spontaneously move from a cool object to a warm object without some work being done to accomplish the task. Do you think light coming from a bulb, or IR from an emitter is spontaneous movement of energy? The second law is what it is and if you bet against it you will lose every time.

When did I ever say that an object stops emitting when a warmer object approaches? I said that a cool object doesn't emit towards a warmer object.

If the 600 C object is emitting, your theory requires it to stop when the 800 C object approaches, but only from the part facing the warmer object. How close does the 800 C object have to be to have that effect? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 1 light year?

And you have a problem with that?

Yes, I have a problem with a hot object only emitting in certain directions.

The second law says that energy won't spontaneously move from a cool object to a warm object

Maybe your problem is with energy? Please share your definition.

Do you think light coming from a bulb, or IR from an emitter is spontaneous movement of energy?

Yes, when I press the button on my TV remote, energy moves, even if the remote is much colder than my TV.

 

[SSDD]

If the 600 C object is emitting, your theory requires it to stop when the 800 C object approaches, but only from the part facing the warmer object. How close does the 800 C object have to be to have that effect? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 1 light year?

Refer to the law of inverse squares.

Yes, I have a problem with a hot object only emitting in certain directions.

Do you have a problem with air, which can move in any direction only moving in one direction if it is inside of a punctured tire? Do you have a problem with air which can move in any direction not trying to go past the escaping air to get into the tire whose pressure inside is greater than the pressure outside? Do you have a problem with water which can flow in any direction only flowing downhill if it is released on an incline? Do you have a problem with water spraying from a hose diverting when pointed directly towards a hose spraying at a higher pressure? Do you have a problem with a stone which could possibly move in any direction only moving in one direction if it is dropped? Why is it that you have no problem with objects obeying the laws of nature till that object is a photon?...assuming that photons even exist? Why do you think that they are somehow not subject to the forces that direct every other object in the universe?

your problem is with energy? Please share your definition.

The capacity or power to do work, such as the capacity to move an object (of a given mass) by the application of force. Energy can exist in a variety of forms, such as electrical, mechanical, chemical, thermal, or nuclear, and can be transformed from one form to another. It is measured by the amount of work done, usually in joules or watts.

Yes, when I press the button on my TV remote, energy moves, even if the remote is much colder than my TV.

Really? You don't think that directing an electric current across a circuit in order to achieve a desired result constitutes work? And again, do you think that because the light in your refrigerator is cold that the filament of the bulb is also cold when it lights up? Do you think the IR emitter inside of your remote remains cold when you push the button moving electricity across the circuit to send an IR signal? Again, you are like a little kid trying to invent perpetual motion in his head.

 

[IanC]

Poor SSDD thinks photons are like matter. That is why he is always comparing them to falling rocks or air in a tire. Photons can easily 'buck the tide' because they can occupy the same space with no transfer of anything.

He also seems to be confusing the properties of virtual photons that carry electric force with real radiative photons that just carry away energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the 600 C object is emitting, your theory requires it to stop when the 800 C object approaches, but only from the part facing the warmer object. How close does the 800 C object have to be to have that effect? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 1 light year?

Refer to the law of inverse squares.

Yes, I have a problem with a hot object only emitting in certain directions.

Do you have a problem with air, which can move in any direction only moving in one direction if it is inside of a punctured tire? Do you have a problem with air which can move in any direction not trying to go past the escaping air to get into the tire whose pressure inside is greater than the pressure outside? Do you have a problem with water which can flow in any direction only flowing downhill if it is released on an incline? Do you have a problem with water spraying from a hose diverting when pointed directly towards a hose spraying at a higher pressure? Do you have a problem with a stone which could possibly move in any direction only moving in one direction if it is dropped? Why is it that you have no problem with objects obeying the laws of nature till that object is a photon?...assuming that photons even exist? Why do you think that they are somehow not subject to the forces that direct every other object in the universe?

your problem is with energy? Please share your definition.

The capacity or power to do work, such as the capacity to move an object (of a given mass) by the application of force. Energy can exist in a variety of forms, such as electrical, mechanical, chemical, thermal, or nuclear, and can be transformed from one form to another. It is measured by the amount of work done, usually in joules or watts.

Yes, when I press the button on my TV remote, energy moves, even if the remote is much colder than my TV.

Really? You don't think that directing an electric current across a circuit in order to achieve a desired result constitutes work? And again, do you think that because the light in your refrigerator is cold that the filament of the bulb is also cold when it lights up? Do you think the IR emitter inside of your remote remains cold when you push the button moving electricity across the circuit to send an IR signal? Again, you are like a little kid trying to invent perpetual motion in his head.

Refer to the law of inverse squares.

How is that relevant to photons measuring the temperature of nearby (or distant) objects?

Do you have a problem with air, which can move in any direction only moving in one direction if it is inside of a punctured tire?

Hate to break it to you, but air molecules inside a punctured tire are still moving in all directions.

You don't think that directing an electric current across a circuit in order to achieve a desired result constitutes work?

You don't think the work required to heat up the 600C object counts as work when you move an 800C object nearby?

Do you think the IR emitter inside of your remote remains cold when you push the button moving electricity across the circuit to send an IR signal?

Do you think the emitter goes from 0C to above room temperature, the instant you push the button?

 

[SSDD]

Poor SSDD thinks photons are like matter. That is why he is always comparing them to falling rocks or air in a tire. Photons can easily 'buck the tide' because they can occupy the same space with no transfer of anything.

He also seems to be confusing the properties of virtual photons that carry electric force with real radiative photons that just carry away energy.

You say "real" photons as if you could prove that they exist.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha. Now photons don't exist. But 19th century scientists managed to define physics in a perfect fashion, even the parts that they didn't know existed. I have to admit I get a chuckle out of your bizarre thinking sometimes.

 

[Crick]

Poor SSDD thinks photons are like matter. That is why he is always comparing them to falling rocks or air in a tire. Photons can easily 'buck the tide' because they can occupy the same space with no transfer of anything.

He also seems to be confusing the properties of virtual photons that carry electric force with real radiative photons that just carry away energy.

You say "real" photons as if you could prove that they exist.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Crick]

Refer to the law of inverse squares.

How is that relevant to photons measuring the temperature of nearby (or distant) objects?

Do you have a problem with air, which can move in any direction only moving in one direction if it is inside of a punctured tire?

Hate to break it to you, but air molecules inside a punctured tire are still moving in all directions.

You don't think that directing an electric current across a circuit in order to achieve a desired result constitutes work?

You don't think the work required to heat up the 600C object counts as work when you move an 800C object nearby?

Do you think the IR emitter inside of your remote remains cold when you push the button moving electricity across the circuit to send an IR signal?

Do you think the emitter goes from 0C to above room temperature, the instant you push the button?

Todd, I am seriously impressed.

I'd REALLY like to see some answers to these questions.

 

[IanC]

Poor SSDD thinks photons are like matter. That is why he is always comparing them to falling rocks or air in a tire. Photons can easily 'buck the tide' because they can occupy the same space with no transfer of anything.

He also seems to be confusing the properties of virtual photons that carry electric force with real radiative photons that just carry away energy.

You say "real" photons as if you could prove that they exist.

What do you mean by that?

SSDD is an fan of all things skydragon slayer. Claes Johnson is a minor celebritywho has a theory about how photons are different than 'classical physics' describes them, and that the surface 'harmonically reflects' incoming photons. his numbers come out exactly the same classical physics but he says it is different somehow. I cannot remember it very clearly but it does make for interesting reading.

 

[SSDD]

Hahahaha. Now photons don't exist. But 19th century scientists managed to define physics in a perfect fashion, even the parts that they didn't know existed. I have to admit I get a chuckle out of your bizarre thinking sometimes.

So lets see the proof that they do. You guys crack me up...You love to claim I am a wacko because I happen to believe the 2LoT when it says that energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool objects to warm...and then try to prove I am wrong by describing what particles that have yet to be proven are doing...and you Ian, not only believe in the hypothetical particles, but also seem to have a firm belief in virtual versions of the hypothetical unproven particles.

Quantum theory is a very long way from being complete. Today, 14 years into the 21st century, the fact is that we don't know, and there is no way of knowing whether photons, or any particle for that matter exists. Your conviction that they do, is nothing more than your faith in someone's interpretation...that's it and when you talk about these unproven particles and what they are doing, you sound like a kid describing the activities in santa's workshop.

You have such a wonderful picture in your mind of what these imaginary players in this imaginary place are doing that you have lost touch with the fact that we are a very long way from even knowing whether or not these players exist, much less whether they are actually doing what you have unshakable faith that they are doing. ROCK ON GARTH...

 

[orogenicman]

You love to claim I am a wacko...

It isn't a claim...

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha. Now photons don't exist. But 19th century scientists managed to define physics in a perfect fashion, even the parts that they didn't know existed. I have to admit I get a chuckle out of your bizarre thinking sometimes.

So lets see the proof that they do. You guys crack me up...You love to claim I am a wacko because I happen to believe the 2LoT when it says that energy doesn't spontaneously move from cool objects to warm...and then try to prove I am wrong by describing what particles that have yet to be proven are doing...and you Ian, not only believe in the hypothetical particles, but also seem to have a firm belief in virtual versions of the hypothetical unproven particles.

Quantum theory is a very long way from being complete. Today, 14 years into the 21st century, the fact is that we don't know, and there is no way of knowing whether photons, or any particle for that matter exists. Your conviction that they do, is nothing more than your faith in someone's interpretation...that's it and when you talk about these unproven particles and what they are doing, you sound like a kid describing the activities in santa's workshop.

You have such a wonderful picture in your mind of what these imaginary players in this imaginary place are doing that you have lost touch with the fact that we are a very long way from even knowing whether or not these players exist, much less whether they are actually doing what you have unshakable faith that they are doing. ROCK ON GARTH...

SLoT deals with net energy flows because it was written for the macroscopic world. And your quote of mamooth is correct. Statistics is the fundamental mechanism of thermodynamics.

 

[jc456]

not based on the photons "knowing" the temperature of surrounding objects?

If the 600 C object is emitting, your theory requires it to stop when the 800 C object approaches, but only from the part facing the warmer object. How close does the 800 C object have to be to have that effect? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 1 light year?
[/QUOTE]

So excuse me for jumping in here, but I have a couple of questions. If an object is at 600C and another object at 800C approaches it, is the temperature now 1400C?

As well, if not, which is what I think you'll tell me, then does the 600C object become warmer or does the 800C object become cooler? Just asking because I don't know the answer.

 

[SSDD]

You love to claim I am a wacko...

It isn't a claim...

Says a warmer wacko...and one who still believes in a hypothesis which has failed over and over.

 

[SSDD]

SLoT deals with net energy flows because it was written for the macroscopic world. And your quote of mamooth is correct. Statistics is the fundamental mechanism of thermodynamics.

So there is no proof as I said and for all of your conviction, it remains nothing more than a statement of faith....and statistics is a branch of mathematics used to attempt to theoretically describe the fundamental mechanism driving thermodynamics...the fundamental mechanism certainly is not a branch of mathematics any more than the mathematics used to describe pressures are the fundamental mechanism of pressure.

 

[SSDD]

not based on the photons "knowing" the temperature of surrounding objects?

If the 600 C object is emitting, your theory requires it to stop when the 800 C object approaches, but only from the part facing the warmer object. How close does the 800 C object have to be to have that effect? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 1 light year?

So excuse me for jumping in here, but I have a couple of questions. If an object is at 600C and another object at 800C approaches it, is the temperature now 1400C?

As well, if not, which is what I think you'll tell me, then does the 600C object become warmer or does the 800C object become cooler? Just asking because I don't know the answer.[/QUOTE]

The 800 degree object becomes cooler and the 600 degree object becomes warmer precisely as the second law predicts because energy moves from warmer to cooler. There is no observation whatsoever suggesting that the 800 degree object will become warmer by even the smallest fraction of a degree which is what would happen if it absorbed any energy from the cooler object.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 800 degree object becomes cooler and the 600 degree object becomes warmer precisely as the second law predicts because energy moves from warmer to cooler. There is no observation whatsoever suggesting that the 800 degree object will become warmer by even the smallest fraction of a degree which is what would happen if it absorbed any energy from the cooler object.

There is no observation whatsoever suggesting that the 800 degree object will become warmer by even the smallest fraction of a degree which is what would happen if it absorbed any energy from the cooler object.

The 800 degree object doesn't have to get warmer, just because it absorbed energy from the 600 degree object.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So excuse me for jumping in here, but I have a couple of questions. If an object is at 600C and another object at 800C approaches it, is the temperature now 1400C?

As well, if not, which is what I think you'll tell me, then does the 600C object become warmer or does the 800C object become cooler? Just asking because I don't know the answer.

No, the temperature is not 1400 C.

The objects will move toward equilibrium. The hotter becomes cooler and the cooler becomes hotter.

Not because the photons are smart (snicker) but because the hotter object radiates more energy toward the cooler than it absorbs from the cooler. Until they're the same temperature. Then they emit and absorb the same amount.

 

[jc456]

The 800 degree object becomes cooler and the 600 degree object becomes warmer precisely as the second law predicts because energy moves from warmer to cooler. There is no observation whatsoever suggesting that the 800 degree object will become warmer by even the smallest fraction of a degree which is what would happen if it absorbed any energy from the cooler object.

There is no observation whatsoever suggesting that the 800 degree object will become warmer by even the smallest fraction of a degree which is what would happen if it absorbed any energy from the cooler object.

The 800 degree object doesn't have to get warmer, just because it absorbed energy from the 600 degree object.

So my question was intended to see if the 600 degree object became warmer from the 800 degree object and if the 800 degree object would become cooler because of the 600 degree object. I have no expertise in the subject, but the problem seemed intersting to me. If I use an ice cube at 28 degrees submerging it into a room temperature drink of say 70 degrees, the fluid will get cooler and the ice will melt. Seems to indicate that cold will affect warm. I may be totally out there and apologize ahead of time for my dumbness.