Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

.cold molecules hitting a warm surface is not energy from a cold object moving to a warm object...it is simply one physical entity hitting another object...molecules are not energy.

There certainly is energy. The molecules have random kinetic energy. Some molecules impart that energy randomly to the warm surface. However it is and must be the case that the hotter more energetic vibrating molecules of the surface imparts even more energy to the gas than it recieves.

 

[Wuwei]

Excuse me if I don't place much value on the opinion of an idiot. And I don't ridicule models...I am all for models...the more models the merrier. What I ridicule is people who accept unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over observable, measurable, testable reality....and until such time as physical observation and measurement bear out the predictions of a model is fiction since it can be nothing else...I ridicule people like you because you knowingly accept fiction over reality...or...considering how often you are fooled by instrumentation, maybe you don't knowingly accept fiction over reality...maybe you only do it in abject ignorance.

The very definition of fiction describes unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models to a T...fiction: an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argumentor explanation.

Since there is no physical evidence of spontaneous two way energy movement, to think it happens is an act of imagination...the fact that it is claimed but can not be observed means that it is postulated...not that it actually happens. Again.. you fail to recognize the difference between what is real, and what is not.

Quantum mechanics is all mathematical models and you think it is fiction. One way energy flow violates both quantum and classical physics observations and measurements. That is definitely not fiction. You proved my point. You obviously don't understand that because you are incapable of abstract thinking in physics.

 

[SSDD]

There certainly is energy. The molecules have random kinetic energy. Some molecules impart that energy randomly to the warm surface.

So now you are claiming that there is such a thing as back conduction? Got any observed measurements of back conduction?

However it is and must be the case that the hotter more energetic vibrating molecules of the surface imparts even more energy to the gas than it recieves.

So what'll it be? Observed measurements of back conduction or some excuse as to why you can't produce them...or will you jump straight on to name calling and skip any pretense at supporting your claim?

 

[SSDD]

Quantum mechanics is all mathematical models and you think it is fiction. One way energy flow violates both quantum and classical physics observations and measurements. That is definitely not fiction. You proved my point. You obviously don't understand that because you are incapable of abstract thinking in physics.

So what if it violates quantum mechanics...quantum mechanics violates itself and is chock full of contradictions...hell this very topic is a contradiction...claiming that radiation exists as both particles and waves is a glaring contradiction....yet it is accepted at present as real...and why? Because at present we don't understand enough about radiation or its properties to say whether it is particles or waves. So we accept a story that lets it be both, and will continue to accept the story till such time as we become advanced enough to know one way or the other. 100 years on, physicists still can't even agree on which interpretation of QM is the correct one.

And if one way energy flow violated observations and measurements, then you could easily produce observations and measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...you can't...and why can't you? Because there are none... You are simply talking out of your ass, hoping that someone will believe what you have to say.

It would seem that you equate imagining fiction to be real abstract thinking...people who occasionally leave their parent's basements to dress up as hobbits and pretend to be in middle earth while in reality are simply adults dressing up wandering in fallow fields must be top shelf abstract thinkers to you. If you were an adept abstract thinker, you would first, admit that the reality is that there are no measurements, or observations of spontaneous energy movement either radiation or conduction and move on from there....rather than keep on claiming that such observations and measurements exist even though you can't provide any because they, in fact, do not exist. Lying is not abstract thinking...lying is just lying.

And sidestepping off on this tangent of pretending that I can't see the emperors new clothes because I am a poor abstract thinker still leaves the emperor's hairy pimpled ass exposed to all who are in touch with reality.

 

[Wuwei]

There certainly is energy. The molecules have random kinetic energy. Some molecules impart that energy randomly to the warm surface.

So now you are claiming that there is such a thing as back conduction? Got any observed measurements of back conduction?

However it is and must be the case that the hotter more energetic vibrating molecules of the surface imparts even more energy to the gas than it recieves.

So what'll it be? Observed measurements of back conduction or some excuse as to why you can't produce them...or will you jump straight on to name calling and skip any pretense at supporting your claim?

Before you use the strawman back conduction, you will have to clearly define what you mean because in the current context, it has no physical meaning. I have already indicated that the end result is that heat goes from the warmer surface to the colder gas, which means that the SloT is not violated.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[Wuwei]

So what if it violates quantum mechanics.... etc

Quantum mechanics is an ultimate abstraction that mathematically models behavior of atoms in solids and gases, spectra, black body radiation, and many other observations and measurements... very successfully.

Obviously you will disparage it because you are incapable of abstract thinking. Your diatribe against QM clearly shows your inability to understand any aspect of nature that you personally can't directly see, touch or feel. That is not science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quantum mechanics is all mathematical models and you think it is fiction. One way energy flow violates both quantum and classical physics observations and measurements. That is definitely not fiction. You proved my point. You obviously don't understand that because you are incapable of abstract thinking in physics.

So what if it violates quantum mechanics...quantum mechanics violates itself and is chock full of contradictions...hell this very topic is a contradiction...claiming that radiation exists as both particles and waves is a glaring contradiction....yet it is accepted at present as real...and why? Because at present we don't understand enough about radiation or its properties to say whether it is particles or waves. So we accept a story that lets it be both, and will continue to accept the story till such time as we become advanced enough to know one way or the other. 100 years on, physicists still can't even agree on which interpretation of QM is the correct one.

And if one way energy flow violated observations and measurements, then you could easily produce observations and measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...you can't...and why can't you? Because there are none... You are simply talking out of your ass, hoping that someone will believe what you have to say.

It would seem that you equate imagining fiction to be real abstract thinking...people who occasionally leave their parent's basements to dress up as hobbits and pretend to be in middle earth while in reality are simply adults dressing up wandering in fallow fields must be top shelf abstract thinkers to you. If you were an adept abstract thinker, you would first, admit that the reality is that there are no measurements, or observations of spontaneous energy movement either radiation or conduction and move on from there....rather than keep on claiming that such observations and measurements exist even though you can't provide any because they, in fact, do not exist. Lying is not abstract thinking...lying is just lying.

And sidestepping off on this tangent of pretending that I can't see the emperors new clothes because I am a poor abstract thinker still leaves the emperor's hairy pimpled ass exposed to all who are in touch with reality.

there are no measurements, or observations of spontaneous energy movement either radiation or conduction and move on from there.

And no radiation from the Sun's surface.
And dimmer switches!

 

[jc456]

How does what molecules hit have anything to do with radiative energy movement....of course molecules of a cold substance can tough a warm surface...it happens 80 million times every morning when a cold egg is dropped into a hot frying pan...that egg, does not impart energy to the frying pan...the frying pan loses energy VIA CONDUCTION to the egg....

Talking about conduction does not prove two way radiative energy movement...

It should be obvious by now that I'm not talking about radiation. I am giving a counter example to your misunderstanding of the SLoT, where I illustrate that energy from a cold substance can hit a warmer substance I am giving a well-known example of conduction – how molecular kinetic energy from a cold gas can move toward and hit a warmer surface. Of course the kinetic energy flow is two-way, and the warm surface always imparts more energy to the cold gas than the gas to the surface.

You are avoiding the question. I'm not talking about an egg and frying pan.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

he answered you here

 

[IanC]

So what if it violates quantum mechanics...quantum mechanics violates itself and is chock full of contradictions...hell this very topic is a contradiction...claiming that radiation exists as both particles and waves is a glaring contradiction....yet it is accepted at present as real...and why? Because at present we don't understand enough about radiation or its properties to say whether it is particles or waves. So we accept a story that lets it be both, and will continue to accept the story till such time as we become advanced enough to know one way or the other. 100 years on, physicists still can't even agree on which interpretation of QM is the correct one

You claim to only believe in things with solid evidence through experiment.

Yet you totally discount a hundred years of doing the double slit experiment that shows light has properties of both particles and waves.

That would be enough but it gets worse. Electrons are matter not light, and they show properties of both particles and waves as well in the double slit experiment.

The results of the double slit experiment are not going to change. Reality does not care whether we understand the reasons completely or not at all.

QM may be more refined in a hundred years but the double slit experiment will still give the same crazy results that show the atomic scale world is different from the macroscopic one.

 

[IanC]

And if one way energy flow violated observations and measurements, then you could easily produce observations and measurements of spontaneous two way energy flow...you can't...and why can't you? Because there are none... You are simply talking out of your ass, hoping that someone will believe what you have to say.

The speeds of individual molecules in a volume of gas vary in a predictable way. They also constantly change by random collision.

You say the SLoT prohibits molecules from accepting energy from lower energy molecules. That would rapidly result in conditions where no collisions would be allowed.

Wuwei asked you if a cold gas molecule was allowed to hit a warm wall. That molecule adds energy initially, and then takes away more than it arrived with (on average). A net movement of energy from warm to cold, but made up of energy going in both directions.

Radiation is different because the energy is separate from the matter. No physical contact is needed. Yet the same process takes place. Some energy from the gas hits the wall at exactly the same time as some energy is leaving the wall. Energy is going both ways, but the NET energy is always from warm to cool.

The only way to stop collisions/radiation is to cool the objects to absolute zero. SSDD believes differently and invokes some unknown physical law that only he knows about.

In kinetic or radiative transfers of energy it is important to remember that these exchanges are happening at the same time. You cannot take just one side or the other, one direction or the other, and say that it is heating the other. It is the NET movement that causes heating or cooling.

Two objects at the same temperature do not warm or cool each other, whether they are both at 20C or 2000C. But the amount of energy being exchanged at 2000C is huge compared to 20C.

 

[SSDD]

There certainly is energy. The molecules have random kinetic energy. Some molecules impart that energy randomly to the warm surface.

So now you are claiming that there is such a thing as back conduction? Got any observed measurements of back conduction?

However it is and must be the case that the hotter more energetic vibrating molecules of the surface imparts even more energy to the gas than it recieves.

So what'll it be? Observed measurements of back conduction or some excuse as to why you can't produce them...or will you jump straight on to name calling and skip any pretense at supporting your claim?

Before you use the strawman back conduction, you will have to clearly define what you mean because in the current context, it has no physical meaning. I have already indicated that the end result is that heat goes from the warmer surface to the colder gas, which means that the SloT is not violated.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

How many times must I say it? Are you so stupid that you can't read? Did I not say that molecules of a cold gas hit an adjacent warm surface every time you open your refrigerator door? How much more clearly can I say it? Do you need a crayon drawing.

That is molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface...not energy radiating from a cold anything to a warm anything...you can't make the case for two way radiative energy flow by pointing out that it is possible to put a cold object into contact with a warm object...the only thing that happens in such a case is that the warm object loses energy to the cold object...no energy moves from the cold object to the warm object.

Could it be that you are trying to make the case that molecules of O2, N2, and CO2 are actually energy and that when those molecules impact a warm surface, it is the same thing as radiative energy movement? Are you that far off the reservation?

 

[SSDD]

So what if it violates quantum mechanics.... etc

Quantum mechanics is an ultimate abstraction that mathematically models behavior of atoms in solids and gases, spectra, black body radiation, and many other observations and measurements... very successfully.

Really? Then lets see the observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement. Being able to produce observed, measured results is the definition of success in science...so lets see it... Or is a fiction about spontaneous two way energy movement still al you have?

And I disparage anything that is fiction which attempts to present itself as reality for any purpose other than entertainment.

 

[SSDD]

How does what molecules hit have anything to do with radiative energy movement....of course molecules of a cold substance can tough a warm surface...it happens 80 million times every morning when a cold egg is dropped into a hot frying pan...that egg, does not impart energy to the frying pan...the frying pan loses energy VIA CONDUCTION to the egg....

Talking about conduction does not prove two way radiative energy movement...

It should be obvious by now that I'm not talking about radiation. I am giving a counter example to your misunderstanding of the SLoT, where I illustrate that energy from a cold substance can hit a warmer substance I am giving a well-known example of conduction – how molecular kinetic energy from a cold gas can move toward and hit a warmer surface. Of course the kinetic energy flow is two-way, and the warm surface always imparts more energy to the cold gas than the gas to the surface.

You are avoiding the question. I'm not talking about an egg and frying pan.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

he answered you here

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.....is he?

 

[SSDD]

You claim to only believe in things with solid evidence through experiment.

Until such time as a thing is demonstrated by actual evidence, it is just a story. What else could it be?

Yet you totally discount a hundred years of doing the double slit experiment that shows light has properties of both particles and waves.

All you are doing is pointing out the fact that we don't yet understand the nature of light. I have been saying that all along.

That would be enough but it gets worse. Electrons are matter not light, and they show properties of both particles and waves as well in the double slit experiment.

Congratulations...you are pointing out that we don't know nearly as much as you think we do...We are still groping in the dark trying to understand things that are and have been all around us all the time forever...Someday we will understand the reality and won't have to settle on a fiction that attempts to explain the natural world...ancient cultures had all sorts of fictions to explain the natural world around them...our fictions are more sophisticated, and based on far more evidence than the ancient cultures had access to, but they are still fictions...some day, the fictions that we believe will be as quaint as the stories the old cultures told around the campfire.

The results of the double slit experiment are not going to change. Reality does not care whether we understand the reasons completely or not at all.

You are right on the cusp of actually knowing something there ian...it is right there for the taking..all you have to do is reach out and embrace it...REALIT DOESN'T CARE WHETHER WE UNDERSTAND THE REASONS COMPLETELY OR NOT... Which is precisely what I have been saying all along...we don't understand...we don't know what the underlying mechanisms are...we have some stories that we tell in an attempt to explain the natural world around us, but they are not the facts because we don't know the facts...they are the best we can do at our level of understanding...STORIES ian...it is just stories and reality doesn't really care whether we understand or not...

Reality is that while we can measure minute energy movements, we have not, can not, and will not ever measure energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...Our story says that it can happen, but reality doesn't care what our story is...it goes right on not letting energy move spontaneously from cold to warm whether we understand how or why or not....without regard to what we tell ourselves.

The keys to the kingdom are right there for the taking ian...reach out and grab them and get in touch with reality.....or don't..

 

[SSDD]

The speeds of individual molecules in a volume of gas vary in a predictable way. They also constantly change by random collision.

You say the SLoT prohibits molecules from accepting energy from lower energy molecules. That would rapidly result in conditions where no collisions would be allowed.

I don't say that the second law prevents anything...I say that the second law says what is. We don't have any idea why it is prevented, or how it is prevented...all we know is that when we look, and attempt to measure, we see that it is being prevented. Energy does not move spontaneously from cold to warm...why? Someday we may know...or we may never know. Like you said...reality doesn't care whether we know or not...and it doesn't care whether the story we tell ourselves jibes with observable reality or not... You prefer the story over observable, measurable reality for some reason that you probably don't even fully understand yourself. Lets here the story you tell about that...and again, reality doesn't care whether you really understand or not.

Wuwei asked you if a cold gas molecule was allowed to hit a warm wall. That molecule adds energy initially, and then takes away more than it arrived with (on average). A net movement of energy from warm to cold, but made up of energy going in both directions.

There is no radiative energy transfer going on there...and the molecule may provide some bit energy in the form of pressure, no different from throwing a snowball at the warmer side of a house...but that energy is mechanical energy...the only thermal energy being made in the exchange is energy being transferred from the warm wall to the molecules of the colder ice crystals in contact with the wall. You can make cold objects contact warm objects all you like but the only thermal energy being exchanged is from the warm to the cold because that is the only direction energy can move.....and again, the key word here is spontaneous....is there anything spontaneous about a cold object being moved into contact with a warm object?

So tell me some more stories ian...but to add the caveat at the end that reality really doesn't care what story you tell about it..reality is going to go right on letting energy spontaneously move from warm to cool.

 

[Wuwei]

Did I not say that molecules of a cold gas hit an adjacent warm surface

Molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface is an example that energy can and does transfer from a cold to a hot object. That is exactly what was said at the hyperphysics site.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object. ​

That why the SLoT must be more generally expressed as

Second Law of Thermodynamics

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. ​

 

[Wuwei]

lets see the observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy movement

The fact that one way energy flow of thermal kinetic energy of molecules or radiation both violate classical and quantum physics is enough to say one way energy flow is a very faulty assumption.

 

[Wuwei]

There is no radiative energy transfer going on there...and the molecule may provide some bit energy in the form of pressure, no different from throwing a snowball at the warmer side of a house.

That is totally wrong. There are trillions of molecules in a cold gas continually bombarding a warm surface. The average kinetic energy of those molecules follows a Boltzmann distribution and defines heat. The kinetic energy of a single snowball does not follow the Boltzmann law in any way shape or form. That analogy is totally inappropriate.

Secondly, a "bit of energy" is not the same as pressure. Your ability to understand physics and physics terminology is grievous.

 

[Crick]

The speeds of individual molecules in a volume of gas vary in a predictable way. They also constantly change by random collision.

You say the SLoT prohibits molecules from accepting energy from lower energy molecules. That would rapidly result in conditions where no collisions would be allowed.

I don't say that the second law prevents anything...I say that the second law says what is. We don't have any idea why it is prevented, or how it is prevented...all we know is that when we look, and attempt to measure, we see that it is being prevented. Energy does not move spontaneously from cold to warm...why? Someday we may know...or we may never know. Like you said...reality doesn't care whether we know or not...and it doesn't care whether the story we tell ourselves jibes with observable reality or not... You prefer the story over observable, measurable reality for some reason that you probably don't even fully understand yourself. Lets here the story you tell about that...and again, reality doesn't care whether you really understand or not.

Wuwei asked you if a cold gas molecule was allowed to hit a warm wall. That molecule adds energy initially, and then takes away more than it arrived with (on average). A net movement of energy from warm to cold, but made up of energy going in both directions.

There is no radiative energy transfer going on there...and the molecule may provide some bit energy in the form of pressure, no different from throwing a snowball at the warmer side of a house...but that energy is mechanical energy...the only thermal energy being made in the exchange is energy being transferred from the warm wall to the molecules of the colder ice crystals in contact with the wall. You can make cold objects contact warm objects all you like but the only thermal energy being exchanged is from the warm to the cold because that is the only direction energy can move.....and again, the key word here is spontaneous....is there anything spontaneous about a cold object being moved into contact with a warm object?

So tell me some more stories ian...but to add the caveat at the end that reality really doesn't care what story you tell about it..reality is going to go right on letting energy spontaneously move from warm to cool.

I think what we'll never know is why you CHOOSE to be so stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The speeds of individual molecules in a volume of gas vary in a predictable way. They also constantly change by random collision.

You say the SLoT prohibits molecules from accepting energy from lower energy molecules. That would rapidly result in conditions where no collisions would be allowed.

I don't say that the second law prevents anything...I say that the second law says what is. We don't have any idea why it is prevented, or how it is prevented...all we know is that when we look, and attempt to measure, we see that it is being prevented. Energy does not move spontaneously from cold to warm...why? Someday we may know...or we may never know. Like you said...reality doesn't care whether we know or not...and it doesn't care whether the story we tell ourselves jibes with observable reality or not... You prefer the story over observable, measurable reality for some reason that you probably don't even fully understand yourself. Lets here the story you tell about that...and again, reality doesn't care whether you really understand or not.

Wuwei asked you if a cold gas molecule was allowed to hit a warm wall. That molecule adds energy initially, and then takes away more than it arrived with (on average). A net movement of energy from warm to cold, but made up of energy going in both directions.

There is no radiative energy transfer going on there...and the molecule may provide some bit energy in the form of pressure, no different from throwing a snowball at the warmer side of a house...but that energy is mechanical energy...the only thermal energy being made in the exchange is energy being transferred from the warm wall to the molecules of the colder ice crystals in contact with the wall. You can make cold objects contact warm objects all you like but the only thermal energy being exchanged is from the warm to the cold because that is the only direction energy can move.....and again, the key word here is spontaneous....is there anything spontaneous about a cold object being moved into contact with a warm object?

So tell me some more stories ian...but to add the caveat at the end that reality really doesn't care what story you tell about it..reality is going to go right on letting energy spontaneously move from warm to cool.

I think what we'll never know is why you CHOOSE to be so stupid.

He heard he should do what he's good at.............