What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,649
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
I am still waiting for the AGW cult to prove with datasets and source code that proves their religion.

Have yet to see it materialize.
 

percysunshine

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
30,880
Reaction score
7,120
Points
1,130
Location
Sty
I am still waiting for the AGW cult to prove with datasets and source code that proves their religion.

Have yet to see it materialize.

They had it, but the hard drive got scratched....accidentally.

.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,909
Points
280
Do you lose heat faster in a freezer? If so, let's hear your explanation why.

So you believe in cold rays? Cold emanations? Pictet did some experiments way back when in the ladder part of the 18th century, and thought that he had discovered cold emanations...that cold objects radiated to warm.

If cold can be radiated to warm, I can think of some damned fine and profitable uses. Name one. There are literally thousands of heat radiation applications on the market...name one cold radiation application.

You crack me up...cold emanations...cold rays...hey guys, lets build a freeze ray!!!! haahahhahahhah

If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law... which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings. Note: the equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow.
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
68,263
Reaction score
15,224
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Do you lose heat faster in a freezer? If so, let's hear your explanation why.

So you believe in cold rays? Cold emanations? Pictet did some experiments way back when in the ladder part of the 18th century, and thought that he had discovered cold emanations...that cold objects radiated to warm.

If cold can be radiated to warm, I can think of some damned fine and profitable uses. Name one. There are literally thousands of heat radiation applications on the market...name one cold radiation application.

You crack me up...cold emanations...cold rays...hey guys, lets build a freeze ray!!!! haahahhahahhah

If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law... which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings. Note: the equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow.

So you believe in cold rays? Cold emanations?

No. Just trying to see how smart your photons are.

the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.

How does the radiator know the temperature of its surroundings? Does it read a thermometer? LOL!

Your photons get smarter all the time!

You still haven't given me the mechanism that shuts off emissions, when a warmer object approaches.

Or the one that explains faster emission in a cooler environment.

Let's hear it.

My mechanism manages to explain both. Let's hear yours, already.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
He doesn't have one. That he compares the flow of photons to the flow of water just illustrates the naivete of his thinking. Photons do not interact with each other, only with matter.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
68,263
Reaction score
15,224
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
He doesn't have one. That he compares the flow of photons to the flow of water just illustrates the naivete of his thinking. Photons do not interact with each other, only with matter.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

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.


I'd like him to explain how the above article, made it to publication, back in 1963, with this claim.......

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.

He likes to say there is no net flow, simply one way.
He can't blame a warmer for that article, can he?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
68,263
Reaction score
15,224
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Do you lose heat faster in a freezer? If so, let's hear your explanation why.

So you believe in cold rays? Cold emanations? Pictet did some experiments way back when in the ladder part of the 18th century, and thought that he had discovered cold emanations...that cold objects radiated to warm.

If cold can be radiated to warm, I can think of some damned fine and profitable uses. Name one. There are literally thousands of heat radiation applications on the market...name one cold radiation application.

You crack me up...cold emanations...cold rays...hey guys, lets build a freeze ray!!!! haahahhahahhah

If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law... which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings. Note: the equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,909
Points
280
How does the radiator know the temperature of its surroundings? Does it read a thermometer? LOL!

You really are beginning to sound like a very boring idiot. How does the air inside a punctured tire know that the pressure is lower outside and thus, it is time to escape? Why do you think a thing, subject to the forces of nature must "know" what to do?

You still haven't given me the mechanism that shuts off emissions, when a warmer object approaches.

I will give you that mechanism as soon as you give me the mechanism which causes gravity. Gravity should be an easy one, so lets here what makes gravity work.

Or the one that explains faster emission in a cooler environment.

Let's hear it.

Already gave it to you...or do you not think the SB law applies?

mechanism manages to explain both. Let's hear yours, already.

Your mechanism is an artifact of a mathematical model...nothing more. Unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable....a product of your faith.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,909
Points
280
He doesn't have one. That he compares the flow of photons to the flow of water just illustrates the naivete of his thinking. Photons do not interact with each other, only with matter.

And you keep talking about photons as if you knew they exist and actually know what they do. Lets see that proof that they exist.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,909
Points
280
Do you lose heat faster in a freezer? If so, let's hear your explanation why.

So you believe in cold rays? Cold emanations? Pictet did some experiments way back when in the ladder part of the 18th century, and thought that he had discovered cold emanations...that cold objects radiated to warm.

If cold can be radiated to warm, I can think of some damned fine and profitable uses. Name one. There are literally thousands of heat radiation applications on the market...name one cold radiation application.

You crack me up...cold emanations...cold rays...hey guys, lets build a freeze ray!!!! haahahhahahhah

If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law... which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings. Note: the equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

So are you saying that the SB law only applies to perfect blackbodies? If that is true, you just trashed the greenhouse hypothesis and everything that came out of it. All garbage...back to the drawing board. Maybe next time they will come up with a hypothesis that can predict the temperatures of other planets, as well as earth.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
68,263
Reaction score
15,224
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
How does the radiator know the temperature of its surroundings? Does it read a thermometer? LOL!

You really are beginning to sound like a very boring idiot. How does the air inside a punctured tire know that the pressure is lower outside and thus, it is time to escape? Why do you think a thing, subject to the forces of nature must "know" what to do?

You still haven't given me the mechanism that shuts off emissions, when a warmer object approaches.

I will give you that mechanism as soon as you give me the mechanism which causes gravity. Gravity should be an easy one, so lets here what makes gravity work.

Or the one that explains faster emission in a cooler environment.

Let's hear it.

Already gave it to you...or do you not think the SB law applies?

mechanism manages to explain both. Let's hear yours, already.

Your mechanism is an artifact of a mathematical model...nothing more. Unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable....a product of your faith.

You really are beginning to sound like a very boring idiot.

Constantly pointing out your idiocy is getting boring.

I will give you that mechanism as soon as

Run away. LOL!

Your mechanism is an artifact of a mathematical model...nothing more.

Of course my mechanism is mathematical. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

Doesn't say anything about power not being emitted if something warmer is nearby.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
68,263
Reaction score
15,224
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
So you believe in cold rays? Cold emanations? Pictet did some experiments way back when in the ladder part of the 18th century, and thought that he had discovered cold emanations...that cold objects radiated to warm.

If cold can be radiated to warm, I can think of some damned fine and profitable uses. Name one. There are literally thousands of heat radiation applications on the market...name one cold radiation application.

You crack me up...cold emanations...cold rays...hey guys, lets build a freeze ray!!!! haahahhahahhah

If you want to know why you lose heat faster in a freezer than you do in the cold refer to the Stefan Boltzman Law... which describes the amount of energy a radiator loses depending upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings. Note: the equation describes a one way gross energy flow from warm to cool...not a two way net flow.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

So are you saying that the SB law only applies to perfect blackbodies? If that is true, you just trashed the greenhouse hypothesis and everything that came out of it. All garbage...back to the drawing board. Maybe next time they will come up with a hypothesis that can predict the temperatures of other planets, as well as earth.

So are you saying that the SB law only applies to perfect blackbodies?

Is that what you said when you mentioned the Stefan Boltzman Law?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,882
Reaction score
1,790
Points
290
Location
N/A
No, he's trying to divert you from your original argument (which he could not otherwise counter) by taking advantage of the fact that you failed to note that nothing is a perfect black body and that all real world object absorb and radiate based on their "blackness". The black body values are simply the maximum possible.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,882
Reaction score
1,790
Points
290
Location
N/A
He has confused (and I'm being generous with that term) net heat transfer with absolute heat transfer. Rather than the scenario in which all items radiate per their temperature, in SSDD's universe, only hotter things radiate to colder, and - somehow - the amount of that radiation is throttled depending on the delta T. All that is necessary for SSDD's hypothesis to work is that all matter be sentient (knowing its own temperature), can sense the temperature of every body surrounding it no matter the distance and can control how much energy it radiates by amplitude and direction.

The question of the finite speed limit on information (c) brings time into the question. Neither we nor all universe's matter SSDD believes to be alive and thinking, can perceive our surroundings in real time. There is always a passage of time and thus the temperature of a remote object whose temperature is changing due to some ongoing process, can NOT be known and there would be a 50/50 chance (ie, VERY close to a guarantee) that a colder object would inadvertently radiate to a hotter object and thus violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy).
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,882
Reaction score
1,790
Points
290
Location
N/A
It can be entertaining finding new ways to show SSDD that his ideas are absurd. Of course, he could bring all our fun to a screeching halt were he to simply find the testicular fortitude to concede he was wrong. But, I was thinking about what I said up there as to what was necessary for SSDD's thermo to hold true and one was that matter needs the ability to throttle the amplitude of its thermal radiation BY DIRECTION. So, let's take a small sphere of iron, say, 1 cm diameter and get it good and hot (5,000K for instance) and place it carefully in intergalactic space at a location from which the nearest object - a rogue planet roughly the size of Pluto (rounded to 2,500 km diameter) with a temperature just above 2.73K, the temperature of the universe - lies at a distance of 2,500,000 light years. Our little sphere wants very much to radiate his little heart out to that cold, rogue planet. Unfortunately, from the wee, hot ball's point of view, the background to that rogue planet is a particularly dense stellar cluster and for many degrees in every direction, a ray from our wee sphere that missed the rogue planet would, instead, land on the 50,000K surface of a star. Can't have that, can we. So our sphere must be able to produce a ray of thermal radiation no larger than that planet. In fact, it must ABSOLUTELY be EXACTLY as large as our rogue planet. The angle of such a ray would be equivalent to ATAN (2500 km/(9.46e12 km/yr * 2,500,000 LY)). Let's see if my calculator has that many digits. I get that it would require a ray angle , of 6.057e-16 degrees. Let's calculate the physical size of the spot on our hot little ball that would have to discretely radiate to produce a ray that narrow.

The small sphere has a circumference of 3.1416 cm. Divide that by the 360 degrees around the thing and we get 0.0087266 cm/degree. Now we need to divide that one degree's span by 6.057e16. This tells us that the radiating area is a small circle on the surface of our ball 1.44e-19 cm across. How big is that, for instance, in comparison to an iron atom? An atom of iron has a diameter of 0.2482 nm or .0000000002482 meters or 2.482e-12 cm. So dividing 2.482e-12 by 1.44e-19, we find that we need a PERFECTLY discrete ray of thermal energy to radiate from an area of the surface of this iron ball that is a little more than one six-millionth the diameter of a single atom of the iron composing our ball.

SSDD, care to explain?
 
Last edited:

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,909
Points
280
He has confused (and I'm being generous with that term) net heat transfer with absolute heat transfer. Rather than the scenario in which all items radiate per their temperature, in SSDD's universe, only hotter things radiate to colder, and - somehow - the amount of that radiation is throttled depending on the delta T. All that is necessary for SSDD's hypothesis to work is that all matter be sentient (knowing its own temperature), can sense the temperature of every body surrounding it no matter the distance and can control how much energy it radiates by amplitude and direction.

The question of the finite speed limit on information (c) brings time into the question. Neither we nor all universe's matter SSDD believes to be alive and thinking, can perceive our surroundings in real time. There is always a passage of time and thus the temperature of a remote object whose temperature is changing due to some ongoing process, can NOT be known and there would be a 50/50 chance (ie, VERY close to a guarantee) that a colder object would inadvertently radiate to a hotter object and thus violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy).

So lets see an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature. You guys claim it is happening as if the claims were true...surely you can provide observed, measured examples.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,882
Reaction score
1,790
Points
290
Location
N/A
It has happened with every single piece of matter in the universe since the Big Bang.

You're the one with the extraordinary claim. You're the one with the burden of making a case. You've been presented several 'experiments' that conflict seriously with your contention and you're explanations so far wouldn't have convinced a second grader.

The real nail in the coffin of the idea that you have the SLIGHTEST scientific competency, is your unwillingness to alter your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For god's sake, multiple individuals on your side of the environmental issues under discussion here have come out against you. Forcefully. Toddsterpatriot, of all people - called you a nitwit and completely justified the charge.

Until you admit that you've been wrong about this (and several other issues on which you've expressed your personal wisdom), it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that you're most ignorant fool most of us have ever had the displeasure to have met.
 
Last edited:

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,882
Reaction score
1,790
Points
290
Location
N/A
He has confused (and I'm being generous with that term) net heat transfer with absolute heat transfer. Rather than the scenario in which all items radiate per their temperature, in SSDD's universe, only hotter things radiate to colder, and - somehow - the amount of that radiation is throttled depending on the delta T. All that is necessary for SSDD's hypothesis to work is that all matter be sentient (knowing its own temperature), can sense the temperature of every body surrounding it no matter the distance and can control how much energy it radiates by amplitude and direction.

The question of the finite speed limit on information (c) brings time into the question. Neither we nor any of the universe's matter that SSDD believes to be alive and thinking, can perceive our surroundings in real time. There is always a passage of time and thus the temperature of a remote object whose temperature is changing due to some ongoing process, can NOT be known and there would be a 50/50 chance (ie, VERY close to a guarantee) that a colder object would inadvertently radiate to a hotter object and thus violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy).

As the 1963 textbook quote Todd provided shows, examples demonstrating our point precisely surround us completely. In ALL cases, NET radiative heat transfer is simply the algebraic sum of the radiation of ALL bodies in a system.

We have, in this argument, two possibilities: that all objects radiate infrared energy in all directions and that the heat transfer that takes place between bodies visible to each other is the simply the net transfer. OR, all matter is somehow able to determine the EXACT temperature of every object in its surroundings, no matter the distance (ie, in gross violation of special relativity and causality, but that's a different post) and throttle its emanations to provide precisely the same results as would the net heat transfer that everyone who ever passed Physics 101 understands. All matter in this, SSDD's world, is able to control how much energy it radiates in all directions with infinite accuracy. Has SSDD been able to suggest a mechanism that performs these seemingly miraculous processes universally. To my knowledge, the ONLY thing he has EVER suggested is that it takes place with the aid of "unknown forces".

Feel free to substitute "magic".

Does Occam's Rule come to anyone's mind?

So lets see an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature. You guys claim it is happening as if the claims were true...surely you can provide observed, measured examples.

No. Evidence that what we say is true surrounds us all constantly. Explain to us how your bizarre ideas do NOT violate Special Relativity, causality and the First Law of Thermodynamics. We have provided you several different observations. You have presented NONE. Pony up, asshole.
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
68,263
Reaction score
15,224
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
He has confused (and I'm being generous with that term) net heat transfer with absolute heat transfer. Rather than the scenario in which all items radiate per their temperature, in SSDD's universe, only hotter things radiate to colder, and - somehow - the amount of that radiation is throttled depending on the delta T. All that is necessary for SSDD's hypothesis to work is that all matter be sentient (knowing its own temperature), can sense the temperature of every body surrounding it no matter the distance and can control how much energy it radiates by amplitude and direction.

The question of the finite speed limit on information (c) brings time into the question. Neither we nor all universe's matter SSDD believes to be alive and thinking, can perceive our surroundings in real time. There is always a passage of time and thus the temperature of a remote object whose temperature is changing due to some ongoing process, can NOT be known and there would be a 50/50 chance (ie, VERY close to a guarantee) that a colder object would inadvertently radiate to a hotter object and thus violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy).

So lets see an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature. You guys claim it is happening as if the claims were true...surely you can provide observed, measured examples.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

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.



Why are you ignoring this article from 1963?
Did Science Magazine misunderstand the 2nd Law?

Why are you ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann constant?

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

You'll notice it is a function of temperature of a body and not a function of the temperature of the surroundings. Were they wrong?
Do we need an SSDD amendment to the constant?
 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top