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

[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.

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.

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.

Yes to both.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

Yes to both.

And eventually they would both be of equal temperature at some point, right?

 

[Andylusion]

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.

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.

Yes to both.

And eventually they would both be of equal temperature at some point, right?

Correct.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Yes to both.

And eventually they would both be of equal temperature at some point, right?

That's the plan.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Really? Are you saying that the absorption of IR doesn't increase the kinetic energy of the molecules of the object that is absorbing or that an increase in kinetic energy won't result in warming...or are you saying that an object can absorb energy without an increase in either kinetic energy or increased temperature?

 

[Crick]

All matter both radiates and absorbs thermal energy at all times. Whether it gets warmer or cooler depends on the balance between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings - on the balance between how much it is radiating and how much it is absorbing: The net thermal flux.

 

[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.

Really? Are you saying that the absorption of IR doesn't increase the kinetic energy of the molecules of the object that is absorbing or that an increase in kinetic energy won't result in warming...or are you saying that an object can absorb energy without an increase in either kinetic energy or increased temperature?

Are you saying that the absorption of IR doesn't increase the kinetic energy of the molecules of the object that is absorbing or that an increase in kinetic energy won't result in warming..

No, you silly git.
It should be obvious that the 800 C object is radiating faster (or more energetically, if you'd like) than the 600 C object.
So even though the 800 C object absorbs energy from the cooler object, it radiates MORE and therefore does not get warmer.

Because a photon, or energy, if you don't believe in photons, doesn't measure the temperature of nearby objects before it decides whether or not to radiate.

 

[SSDD]

So even though the 800 C object absorbs energy from the cooler object, it radiates MORE and therefore does not get warmer.

So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object.....otherwise you are just talking theory based on nothing more than a mathematical model...unobserved...unmeasured...untestable....unprovable. In short, a statement of faith.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So even though the 800 C object absorbs energy from the cooler object, it radiates MORE and therefore does not get warmer.

So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object.....otherwise you are just talking theory based on nothing more than a mathematical model...unobserved...unmeasured...untestable....unprovable. In short, a statement of faith.

So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object

Sure, I'll post a picture of an object suddenly ceasing to radiate, just because a warmer object approaches.

Oh, wait, that's the proof you need for your smart photon theory.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So even though the 800 C object absorbs energy from the cooler object, it radiates MORE and therefore does not get warmer.

So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object.....otherwise you are just talking theory based on nothing more than a mathematical model...unobserved...unmeasured...untestable....unprovable. In short, a statement of faith.

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

OMG! Receiving energy from cooler objects in the room. Inconceivable!!!

Thermography of the Human Body

 

[SSDD]

So even though the 800 C object absorbs energy from the cooler object, it radiates MORE and therefore does not get warmer.

So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object.....otherwise you are just talking theory based on nothing more than a mathematical model...unobserved...unmeasured...untestable....unprovable. In short, a statement of faith.

So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object

Sure, I'll post a picture of an object suddenly ceasing to radiate, just because a warmer object approaches.

Oh, wait, that's the proof you need for your smart photon theory.

Not even a good dodge. Why not simply admit that there are no observed, measured examples of warmer objects absorbing energy from cooler objects.

Ands again, why do you feel the need to lie. I never said that an object ceases to radiate when a warmer object comes close. Making up arguments to rail against is a warmer tactic.

 

[SSDD]

So even though the 800 C object absorbs energy from the cooler object, it radiates MORE and therefore does not get warmer.

So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object.....otherwise you are just talking theory based on nothing more than a mathematical model...unobserved...unmeasured...untestable....unprovable. In short, a statement of faith.

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

OMG! Receiving energy from cooler objects in the room. Inconceivable!!!

Thermography of the Human Body

So your body doesn't vary the amount of calories it burns in order to maintain a steady temperature? If it is warm, your body doesn't burn less energy to keep warm? Do you think that because you steadily radiate 1000 watts that the amount of energy required to maintain that radiation is the same? If you are sitting in a freezer do you think it takes the same amount of calories to maintain your temperature as it does when you are sitting at room temperature?

Face it todd.. energy doesn't flow from cool objects to warm objects....if it did the second law wouldn't say that it doesn't.

 

[percysunshine]

I will give the physicist $10,000 if he can prove man made global warming.

He can't, so I am not worried much.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object.....otherwise you are just talking theory based on nothing more than a mathematical model...unobserved...unmeasured...untestable....unprovable. In short, a statement of faith.

So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object

Sure, I'll post a picture of an object suddenly ceasing to radiate, just because a warmer object approaches.

Oh, wait, that's the proof you need for your smart photon theory.

Not even a good dodge. Why not simply admit that there are no observed, measured examples of warmer objects absorbing energy from cooler objects.

Ands again, why do you feel the need to lie. I never said that an object ceases to radiate when a warmer object comes close. Making up arguments to rail against is a warmer tactic.

I never said that an object ceases to radiate when a warmer object comes close.

Then how does energy not flow from the cooler to the warmer?
Run through your mechanism. 600 C object, happily radiating. 800 C object placed nearby. Go!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object.....otherwise you are just talking theory based on nothing more than a mathematical model...unobserved...unmeasured...untestable....unprovable. In short, a statement of faith.

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

OMG! Receiving energy from cooler objects in the room. Inconceivable!!!

Thermography of the Human Body

So your body doesn't vary the amount of calories it burns in order to maintain a steady temperature? If it is warm, your body doesn't burn less energy to keep warm? Do you think that because you steadily radiate 1000 watts that the amount of energy required to maintain that radiation is the same? If you are sitting in a freezer do you think it takes the same amount of calories to maintain your temperature as it does when you are sitting at room temperature?

Face it todd.. energy doesn't flow from cool objects to warm objects....if it did the second law wouldn't say that it doesn't.

So your body doesn't vary the amount of calories it burns in order to maintain a steady temperature?

Who said that? Where?

If it is warm, your body doesn't burn less energy to keep warm?

Who said that? Where?

If you are sitting in a freezer do you think it takes the same amount of calories to maintain your temperature as it does when you are sitting at room temperature?

Let's use your scenario.

If I'm in a freezer, why do I lose body heat faster than if I'm sitting at room temperature?
Assume I'm wearing a spacesuit and in a vacuum.

 

[SSDD]

So lets see an observed, measured example of a warmer object absorbing energy from a cooler object

Sure, I'll post a picture of an object suddenly ceasing to radiate, just because a warmer object approaches.

Oh, wait, that's the proof you need for your smart photon theory.

Not even a good dodge. Why not simply admit that there are no observed, measured examples of warmer objects absorbing energy from cooler objects.

Ands again, why do you feel the need to lie. I never said that an object ceases to radiate when a warmer object comes close. Making up arguments to rail against is a warmer tactic.

I never said that an object ceases to radiate when a warmer object comes close.

Then how does energy not flow from the cooler to the warmer?
Run through your mechanism. 600 C object, happily radiating. 800 C object placed nearby. Go!

It simply doesn't radiate in that direction. Do you find it equally strange that if you shoot two hoses toward each other and one has more pressure that the water from the weaker hose diverts....it still comes out of the hose, but can't spray in the direction the higher pressure is coming from...same with air...same with solid objects. Why do you think theoretical photons are exempt from the forces of nature that every other object in the universe are subject to?

 

[SSDD]

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

OMG! Receiving energy from cooler objects in the room. Inconceivable!!!

Thermography of the Human Body

So your body doesn't vary the amount of calories it burns in order to maintain a steady temperature? If it is warm, your body doesn't burn less energy to keep warm? Do you think that because you steadily radiate 1000 watts that the amount of energy required to maintain that radiation is the same? If you are sitting in a freezer do you think it takes the same amount of calories to maintain your temperature as it does when you are sitting at room temperature?


Face it todd.. energy doesn't flow from cool objects to warm objects....if it did the second law wouldn't say that it doesn't.

So your body doesn't vary the amount of calories it burns in order to maintain a steady temperature?

Who said that? Where?

If it is warm, your body doesn't burn less energy to keep warm?

Who said that? Where?

If you are sitting in a freezer do you think it takes the same amount of calories to maintain your temperature as it does when you are sitting at room temperature?

Let's use your scenario.

If I'm in a freezer, why do I lose body heat faster than if I'm sitting at room temperature?
Assume I'm wearing a spacesuit and in a vacuum.

You did with your idiot suggestion that your body is absorbing energy from the cooler walls. Again, you are like a little kid trying to describe the operations at santa's workshop. Energy does not go from cool objects to warm objects.....if it did, the second law would say so...it doesn't.

And I guess you think that you lose heat faster in a freezer because the freezer is radiating cold to you? Is that what you think? If so, I am laughing out loud in your face.

You are expressing your faith...not providing proof of anything since there is no proof to support your statement. Your claim is unobserved, unmeasurable, untestable....it is your belief...it is faith.

 

[jc456]

So your body doesn't vary the amount of calories it burns in order to maintain a steady temperature? If it is warm, your body doesn't burn less energy to keep warm? Do you think that because you steadily radiate 1000 watts that the amount of energy required to maintain that radiation is the same? If you are sitting in a freezer do you think it takes the same amount of calories to maintain your temperature as it does when you are sitting at room temperature?


Face it todd.. energy doesn't flow from cool objects to warm objects....if it did the second law wouldn't say that it doesn't.

So your body doesn't vary the amount of calories it burns in order to maintain a steady temperature?

Who said that? Where?

If it is warm, your body doesn't burn less energy to keep warm?

Who said that? Where?

If you are sitting in a freezer do you think it takes the same amount of calories to maintain your temperature as it does when you are sitting at room temperature?

Let's use your scenario.

If I'm in a freezer, why do I lose body heat faster than if I'm sitting at room temperature?
Assume I'm wearing a spacesuit and in a vacuum.

You did with your idiot suggestion that your body is absorbing energy from the cooler walls. Again, you are like a little kid trying to describe the operations at santa's workshop. Energy does not go from cool objects to warm objects.....if it did, the second law would say so...it doesn't.

And I guess you think that you lose heat faster in a freezer because the freezer is radiating cold to you? Is that what you think? If so, I am laughing out loud in your face.

You are expressing your faith...not providing proof of anything since there is no proof to support your statement. Your claim is unobserved, unmeasurable, untestable....it is your belief...it is faith.

Ok, so my dumb ass is thinking again. The analogy with the freezer,

if I were outside in 110 degree heat, my body temperature wouldn't eventually go up to 110 degrees so why would my body temperature go down to the temperature in a freezer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not even a good dodge. Why not simply admit that there are no observed, measured examples of warmer objects absorbing energy from cooler objects.

Ands again, why do you feel the need to lie. I never said that an object ceases to radiate when a warmer object comes close. Making up arguments to rail against is a warmer tactic.

I never said that an object ceases to radiate when a warmer object comes close.

Then how does energy not flow from the cooler to the warmer?
Run through your mechanism. 600 C object, happily radiating. 800 C object placed nearby. Go!

It simply doesn't radiate in that direction. Do you find it equally strange that if you shoot two hoses toward each other and one has more pressure that the water from the weaker hose diverts....it still comes out of the hose, but can't spray in the direction the higher pressure is coming from...same with air...same with solid objects. Why do you think theoretical photons are exempt from the forces of nature that every other object in the universe are subject to?

It simply doesn't radiate in that direction.

How does it know that it has to stop radiating?
Explain the mechanism. How close does the 800 C object have to get?
How quickly does it stop radiating?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So your body doesn't vary the amount of calories it burns in order to maintain a steady temperature? If it is warm, your body doesn't burn less energy to keep warm? Do you think that because you steadily radiate 1000 watts that the amount of energy required to maintain that radiation is the same? If you are sitting in a freezer do you think it takes the same amount of calories to maintain your temperature as it does when you are sitting at room temperature?


Face it todd.. energy doesn't flow from cool objects to warm objects....if it did the second law wouldn't say that it doesn't.

So your body doesn't vary the amount of calories it burns in order to maintain a steady temperature?

Who said that? Where?

If it is warm, your body doesn't burn less energy to keep warm?

Who said that? Where?

If you are sitting in a freezer do you think it takes the same amount of calories to maintain your temperature as it does when you are sitting at room temperature?

Let's use your scenario.

If I'm in a freezer, why do I lose body heat faster than if I'm sitting at room temperature?
Assume I'm wearing a spacesuit and in a vacuum.

You did with your idiot suggestion that your body is absorbing energy from the cooler walls. Again, you are like a little kid trying to describe the operations at santa's workshop. Energy does not go from cool objects to warm objects.....if it did, the second law would say so...it doesn't.

And I guess you think that you lose heat faster in a freezer because the freezer is radiating cold to you? Is that what you think? If so, I am laughing out loud in your face.

You are expressing your faith...not providing proof of anything since there is no proof to support your statement. Your claim is unobserved, unmeasurable, untestable....it is your belief...it is faith.

You did with your idiot suggestion that your body is absorbing energy from the cooler walls.

Wow, reading comprehension issues too.

And I guess you think that you lose heat faster in a freezer because the freezer is radiating cold to you?

Do you lose heat faster in a freezer? If so, let's hear your explanation why.
Does it also involve smart photons?