Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

The resonant radio frequency was detected on the ground...if you want to measure actual CMB you must do it with satellites outside the atmosphere. I'm just not sure what is so difficult about this that you can't even grasp the concept.

Right. The actual CMB went through the atmosphere to the resonantly tuned receiver on the ground. The satellite uses the same principle by also receiving the CMB and detecting it using resonantly tuned receivers. Of course, satellites are better, but the CMB can still penetrate to the ground. It can even be picked up on an old analog TV.

6 Things you may not know about the afterglow of the big bang | Latest Features | physics.org

"Tune your TV between the stations and about 1% of the static on the screen is from the big bang fireball."​

 

[SSDD]

You say there are no natural spontaneous interactions that increase the energy of an individual molecule, that it is forbidden by your version of the SLoT. That it never happens, ever. No molecule can speed up, no photon can be emitted at a molecule with more energy than the emitting one.

I don't have a version of the 2nd law...I only have the statement of the law which says that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. I accept that statement at face value without the need to interpret, alter, add to or make any other changes to said statement.

 

[SSDD]

The resonant radio frequency was detected on the ground...if you want to measure actual CMB you must do it with satellites outside the atmosphere. I'm just not sure what is so difficult about this that you can't even grasp the concept.

Right. The actual CMB went through the atmosphere to the resonantly tuned receiver on the ground. The satellite uses the same principle by also receiving the CMB and detecting it using resonantly tuned receivers. Of course, satellites are better, but the CMB can still penetrate to the ground. It can even be picked up on an old analog TV.

6 Things you may not know about the afterglow of the big bang | Latest Features | physics.org

"Tune your TV between the stations and about 1% of the static on the screen is from the big bang fireball."​

No idiot...a resonant radio frequency went through the atmosphere...actual CMB did not...geez but you are a dupe...

 

[Wuwei]

No idiot...a resonant radio frequency went through the atmosphere...actual CMB did not...geez but you are a dupe...

When you use abrasive language with repetitive or little information content, we know you are at a loss on how to reply.

Now you are lying. Since many satellites use identical techniques as ground systems, you are essentially saying that satellites are receiving "resonant radio frequencies" but not the CMB.

 

[Wuwei]

don't have a version of the 2nd law...I only have the statement of the law which says that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. I accept that statement at face value without the need to interpret, alter, add to or make any other changes to said statement

Face value? No interpretation? That mantra is so silly. You sure have a low bar for rationalizing your purposeful misinterpretations.

 

[IanC]

You say there are no natural spontaneous interactions that increase the energy of an individual molecule, that it is forbidden by your version of the SLoT. That it never happens, ever. No molecule can speed up, no photon can be emitted at a molecule with more energy than the emitting one.

I don't have a version of the 2nd law...I only have the statement of the law which says that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. I accept that statement at face value without the need to interpret, alter, add to or make any other changes to said statement.

Define the term 'object' then. In the past you have claimed your version of the SLoT was valid right down to a single molecule, and right down to a single photon if photons actually existed.

Are you ready yet to acknowledge that individual atomic scale actions do not fall under the purview of the SLoT? That the second law is simply a macroscopic probability built up from atomic scale events that are not governed by the same constraints?

For instance, temperature is the average kinetic speed of the vast cohort of molecules that make up an object. They have a wide range of speeds. But the atoms or molecules that are the same species all react identically no matter what their speed is. There is no such thing as temperature for an isolated molecule. Only when they are confined to a volume of space where they colide with each other in great numbers does temperature become a valid concept.

Radiation is a byproduct of collisions within the object. The amount emitted, j=sigmaT^^4, is a function of internal conditions. The object will cool by expelling radiation until it reaches absolute zero Kelvin, when the molecules stop moving and colliding.

A nearby object does not control the internal conditions of the first object. But the radiation produced and sent to the first object does reduce the energy loss and temperature drop by inputting new energy.

The two objects are both still radiating as fast as they can. Neither is cooling as fast because they are getting replacement energy from the other.

There is no magical throttle or dimmer switch controlled by the opposite object. It is full radiation all of the time. The rate of cooling is reduced by nearby objects (over zero Kelvin) but that does not stop them from radiating.

 

[SSDD]

Now you are lying. Since many satellites use identical techniques as ground systems, you are essentially saying that satellites are receiving "resonant radio frequencies" but not the CMB.

Is this all really that difficult for you? Tell me goob.. Satellites are outside the warm atmosphere and are receiving actual CMB...they don't need a resonant radio frequency...

 

[SSDD]

don't have a version of the 2nd law...I only have the statement of the law which says that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. I accept that statement at face value without the need to interpret, alter, add to or make any other changes to said statement

Face value? No interpretation? That mantra is so silly. You sure have a low bar for rationalizing your purposeful misinterpretations.

Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?

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.

In fact which part of that statement have I not accepted at face value...which part have I interpreted in any manner at all...much less misinterpreted?

 

[SSDD]

Define the term 'object' then. In the past you have claimed your version of the SLoT was valid right down to a single molecule, and right down to a single photon if photons actually existed.

You are unsure of what an object is? There exists this thing called a dictionary...it tells you what words mean. Here is what that miraculous document says about the word object.

anything that is visible or tangible and isrelatively stable in form.

Are you ready yet to acknowledge that individual atomic scale actions do not fall under the purview of the SLoT? That the second law is simply a macroscopic probability built up from atomic scale events that are not governed by the same constraints?

Do you have any actual evidence that they are somehow exempt from the second law of thermodynamics? Any observation...any measurement....anything other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model?

Radiation is a byproduct of collisions within the object. The amount emitted, j=sigmaT^^4, is a function of internal conditions. The object will cool by expelling radiation until it reaches absolute zero Kelvin, when the molecules stop moving and colliding.

You keep saying that even though I brought you statements from some top shelf physicists that state quite clearly that objects only radiate strictly according to their own internal conditions when they are alone in a vacuum...when they are in the presence of other matter, then they radiate according to the difference between their own temperature an the temperature of their surroundings. That fact isn't going away just because you wish it would.

There is no magical throttle or dimmer switch controlled by the opposite object. It is full radiation all of the time. The rate of cooling is reduced by nearby objects (over zero Kelvin) but that does not stop them from radiating.

Of course it isn't magic...I am sure that one day, we will learn the actual mechanism for why energy can not move spontaneously from cool objects to warm and it most certainly won't be magic...it will be, as is always the case in science...something that we just didn't know...you know...sufficiently advanced technology looking like magic to the uneducated... At least I am educated enough so that it doesn't look like magic to me...it just looks like some physical phenomenon that we are not yet capable of understanding.

 

[MPS777]

Define the term 'object' then. In the past you have claimed your version of the SLoT was valid right down to a single molecule, and right down to a single photon if photons actually existed.

You are unsure of what an object is? There exists this thing called a dictionary...it tells you what words mean. Here is what that miraculous document says about the word object.

anything that is visible or tangible and isrelatively stable in form.

Are you ready yet to acknowledge that individual atomic scale actions do not fall under the purview of the SLoT? That the second law is simply a macroscopic probability built up from atomic scale events that are not governed by the same constraints?

Do you have any actual evidence that they are somehow exempt from the second law of thermodynamics? Any observation...any measurement....anything other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model?

Radiation is a byproduct of collisions within the object. The amount emitted, j=sigmaT^^4, is a function of internal conditions. The object will cool by expelling radiation until it reaches absolute zero Kelvin, when the molecules stop moving and colliding.

You keep saying that even though I brought you statements from some top shelf physicists that state quite clearly that objects only radiate strictly according to their own internal conditions when they are alone in a vacuum...when they are in the presence of other matter, then they radiate according to the difference between their own temperature an the temperature of their surroundings. That fact isn't going away just because you wish it would.

There is no magical throttle or dimmer switch controlled by the opposite object. It is full radiation all of the time. The rate of cooling is reduced by nearby objects (over zero Kelvin) but that does not stop them from radiating.

Of course it isn't magic...I am sure that one day, we will learn the actual mechanism for why energy can not move spontaneously from cool objects to warm and it most certainly won't be magic...it will be, as is always the case in science...something that we just didn't know...you know...sufficiently advanced technology looking like magic to the uneducated... At least I am educated enough so that it doesn't look like magic to me...it just looks like some physical phenomenon that we are not yet capable of understanding.

So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth. So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply. Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun. The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions. I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space? It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right? As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

don't have a version of the 2nd law...I only have the statement of the law which says that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. I accept that statement at face value without the need to interpret, alter, add to or make any other changes to said statement

Face value? No interpretation? That mantra is so silly. You sure have a low bar for rationalizing your purposeful misinterpretations.

Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?

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.

In fact which part of that statement have I not accepted at face value...which part have I interpreted in any manner at all...much less misinterpreted?

Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?

The part where you imagine it means radiation only flows one way.

So, now that your latest source, Handbook of Modern Sensors (3rd edition), shows that radiation
actually flows in all directions, and that flux actually refers to net flux, do you have any source that agrees with your unique misinterpretation?

Not one? Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

Is this all really that difficult for you? Tell me goob.. Satellites are outside the warm atmosphere and are receiving actual CMB...they don't need a resonant radio frequency...

That is not science. That is just bluff. Tell me exactly how you think the rarefied upper atmosphere turns CMB into a "resonant radio frequency"? What does the "resonant radio frequency" look like in the upper rarefied atmosphere? Please feel free to copy and paste links that explain that better.

 

[Wuwei]

Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?

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.

In fact which part of that statement have I not accepted at face value...which part have I interpreted in any manner at all...much less misinterpreted?

Tod answered above. To paraphrase Tod, you believe there exist smart photons that can avoid directions where there are warmer objects.

 

[Wuwei]

So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth. So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply. Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun. The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions. I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space? It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right? As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

You haven't been around SSDD as much as the others on this board, so you may not realize that he pretends science is different than what it is so he can practice a sort of a "flat-earth" type of dialog. He has been backed into a corner on many of his pretended "beliefs". He believes that at thermal equilibrium two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other. In one single post he has referred in derogatory terms to those who believe in exchanged radiation in thermal equilibrium as:

"using shitty math"
"attempt to fool idiots"
"bullshit equation"
"piss poor mathematical skills"
"senseless rants"
"are a dupe"​

That rant would also defame, Albert Einstein, Wilhellm Wein Gustav Kirchhoff, Max Plank, Niels Bohr, who are all Nobel Prize winners. He is also defaming all scientists for the last 100 years or so.

He is full of bluff, bluster, and argumentum ad hominem. Don't expect much science dialog. But it is an interesting game watching him try to squirm out of real science with outlandish pretenses.

 

[SSDD]

The part where you imagine it means radiation only flows one way.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that suggests spontaneous two way energy flow to you?

 

[SSDD]

So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth. So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply. Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun. The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions. I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space? It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right? As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

Might it be that the amount of interpretation going on is, in large part, the problem.

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


I take that statement at face value..I do not interpret it...I do not attempt to add anything to it that is not there...and I do not take away from it anything that is there...face value. I credit the authors with enough intelligence to have said exactly what they meant to say without needing me, or anyone else to interpret what they said...and if new observations and measurements have been made that make prove the reality of spontaneous two way energy flow, I would suspect that the statement of the second law would be changed to reflect such evidence.

 

[SSDD]

Is this all really that difficult for you? Tell me goob.. Satellites are outside the warm atmosphere and are receiving actual CMB...they don't need a resonant radio frequency...

That is not science. That is just bluff. Tell me exactly how you think the rarefied upper atmosphere turns CMB into a "resonant radio frequency"? What does the "resonant radio frequency" look like in the upper rarefied atmosphere? Please feel free to copy and paste links that explain that better.

CMB isn't "turned into" anything...you don't have the first idea what a resonant frequency is do you...go learn what a resonant frequency is then we can continue...not before.

 

[SSDD]

Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?

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.

In fact which part of that statement have I not accepted at face value...which part have I interpreted in any manner at all...much less misinterpreted?

Tod answered above. To paraphrase Tod, you believe there exist smart photons that can avoid directions where there are warmer objects.

So you finally admit that I am not interpreting anything.....and that you are interpreting.

I don't think there are smart photons...I think that when we finally reach a stage where we understand why energy can not move spontaneously from cold to warm, it won't be magic...and it won't be smart anything..it will be just one more thing we come to understand about why energy behaves as it is...That you guys believe that there must be some intelligence involved is a failure on your part...what you should grasp is that there is a great deal we have yet to learn and none of it will be due to magic or smart particles.

You are like the uneducated native who believes that anything he doesn't understand must be magic...or the educated stupid who believes that he and science already know all that there is to know.

 

[SSDD]

He believes that at thermal equilibrium two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other.

Quite to the contrary...observation and measured evidence has failed to detect spontaneous two way energy movement...the second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from a cool to a warm object...the second law says it, observation and measurement bear this out...it is you who "believes" something other than what the 2nd law, observation, and measurement say... I am not operating from a position of belief...I am working from a position of observed measured reality.

 

[Wuwei]

CMB isn't "turned into" anything...you don't have the first idea what a resonant frequency is do you...go learn what a resonant frequency is then we can continue...not before.

That's a vacuous answer. In CMB detection the resonant device is in the amplifier, not the thermal radiation. If the CMB is not "turned into anything" then it is still CMB as it travels through the atmosphere before it hits the resonant frequency detector.