Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

No. Ignoring the physics of how vibrating charges must radiate and changing the subject to something that has absolutely no practical value makes you a troll.

Once again...you are telling me what you believe...not how, or why theoretical vibration (since we never saw a molecule vibrate) translates to energy. Why can't you simply admit that we don't know. Is it that tough for you to acknowledge how much science doesn't know at this point in history?

The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.

What observation did we ever make of a vibrating molecule? And saying that rocks must fall when dropped because of observations, tests, and measurements does not even begin to explain why rocks must fall when dropped... You are employing the most basic and flawed type of circular reasoning. Can you see yourself? Why not just admit that we don't know? Would your faith crumble around you if you were to acknowledge that we really don't know how or why energy transfers, how vibrations are translated to energy...and any number of other basic questions regarding energy, its nature, and how it moves around?

You are still digressing and pulling that anti-science troll crap again. We are talking about the practical aspects of observed, measured physics experiments that show that all materials have vibrating atoms that emit EM energy. Those observed, measured physics experiments show that objects exchange thermal radiation simply because any two objects are above absolute zero.

Again, it's not my faith. It's observed, measured physics experiments. Your faith violates observed, measured radiation physics. It doesn't matter why rocks fall, etc in predicting physics outcomes.

 

[Wuwei]

The reasons vibrating charges must radiate came from countless observations, tests, and measurements, not faith.

I’ve found this site to be a good summary of how moving charges create electromagnetic radiation:
Larmor Radiation

I agree. It's all on one page. The problem is SSDD doesn't believe mathematical models of physics. He likes to play games with "reality".

Actually it is you who likes to play games with reality...models are not reality...particularly models that aren't borne out by observation and measurement. Now you keep claiming that spontaneous two way energy flow happens, and as evidence you hold up nothing more than models...do you have any actual observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow? The answer to that is a simple no...and the evidence is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics still states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm.

Mr anti-science again. All physics calculations and predictions come from mathematical models. Radiative heat exchange follows the second law. You said it yourself.

 

[SSDD]

You are still digressing and pulling that anti-science troll crap again. We are talking about the practical aspects of observed, measured physics experiments that show that all materials have vibrating atoms that emit EM energy. Those observed, measured physics experiments show that objects exchange thermal radiation simply because any two objects are above absolute zero.

You were the one who claimed that science understood the mechanism of energy transfer very well. I am simply asking the most basic questions about the mechanism of energy transfer. Clearly you can't answer because science doesn't know. Science is pretty good at observing energy movement but oddly enough, doesn't seem to be able to observe spontaneous two way energy exchange. Ever wonder why?

Again, it's not my faith. It's observed, measured physics experiments. Your faith violates observed, measured radiation physics. It doesn't matter why rocks fall, etc in predicting physics outcomes.

So show me a measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange. Such a measurement would be groundbreaking..it would be very important..so lets see it. We both know you won't be presenting any such thing because it has not been observed or measured...ever. You believe a model is evidence...that is because you are divorced from reality.

 

[SSDD]

Mr anti-science again. All physics calculations and predictions come from mathematical models. Radiative heat exchange follows the second law. You said it yourself.

The second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...which is why there has never been an observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange. You can either present physical evidence, which would move your position out of the realm of faith and belief into the realm of reality...or you can't. We both know you can't and we both know in which realm that leaves your position.

 

[Crick]

Why does it not bother you that millions of people, most with far better educations than yours, understand that to mean net flow? Do you really think you are smarter than ALL of them?

 

[Wuwei]

The second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...which is why there has never been an observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange. You can either present physical evidence, which would move your position out of the realm of faith and belief into the realm of reality...or you can't. We both know you can't and we both know in which realm that leaves your position.

In your last post in another thread you said,

.net energy flow predicts the same temperature as gross energy flow...net energy flow predictions are the same as unicorn perspiration predictions...they make no difference whatsoever and the bottom line is that all we can observe is one way gross energy movement from a more oredered state to a less ordered state.

So if, as you say, net and gross energy flow both predict the same thing, then why do you have faith in gross energy flow which violates quantum mechanics. To you it seems to be a matter of opinion. To science it's a matter of which violates a fundamental law.

 

[SSDD]

Why does it not bother you that millions of people, most with far better educations than yours, understand that to mean net flow? Do you really think you are smarter than ALL of them?

I understand perfectly what net flow means...I am asking for evidence of it...why are you unable to understand the difference between believing that it happens, and presenting evidence that it does?

Intelligence is relative...I don't have much confidence in people who believe models are real and lose touch with the fact that they are models and not reality.

 

[SSDD]

The second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm...which is why there has never been an observation or measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange. You can either present physical evidence, which would move your position out of the realm of faith and belief into the realm of reality...or you can't. We both know you can't and we both know in which realm that leaves your position.

In your last post in another thread you said,

.net energy flow predicts the same temperature as gross energy flow...net energy flow predictions are the same as unicorn perspiration predictions...they make no difference whatsoever and the bottom line is that all we can observe is one way gross energy movement from a more oredered state to a less ordered state.

So if, as you say, net and gross energy flow both predict the same thing, then why do you have faith in gross energy flow which violates quantum mechanics. To you it seems to be a matter of opinion. To science it's a matter of which violates a fundamental law.

I don't have faith in it...the observational and measured evidence say gross one way energy flow...when observation and measurement say one thing, why would you believe a model that says something else is happening but just can't be observed or measured? And the fundamental law says that one way gross energy movement is what is happening...the law doesn't say spontaneous two way energy movement...your "interpretation", or belief, or whatever adds net...the law itself doesn't say any such thing.

 

[Wuwei]

I don't have faith in it...the observational and measured evidence say gross one way energy flow...when observation and measurement say one thing, why would you believe a model that says something else is happening but just can't be observed or measured? And the fundamental law says that one way gross energy movement is what is happening...the law doesn't say spontaneous two way energy movement...your "interpretation", or belief, or whatever adds net...the law itself doesn't say any such thing.

You said both gross and net flow both predict the same thing. According to you the evidence allows net flow as observational and measured. The fundamental law does not say gross energy flow. Read the hyperphysics site again. The author of a widely read site said net energy flow.

Yes, you have faith if you choose the gross nonviable option over what all of science says.

 

[SSDD]

You said both gross and net flow both predict the same thing. According to you the evidence allows net flow as observational and measured. The fundamental law does not say gross energy flow. Read the hyperphysics site again. The author of a widely read site said net energy flow.

Yes, you have faith if you choose the gross nonviable option over what all of science says.

You poor idiot.....faith, by definition is belief in something not provable...all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say energy only flows spontaneously in one direction...belief in anything else, is by definition..faith.

 

[Wuwei]

You poor idiot.....faith, by definition is belief in something not provable...all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say energy only flows spontaneously in one direction...belief in anything else, is by definition..faith.

Ad hominem doesn't prove your point.

Since you say gross and net flow both predict the same thing, all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say heat flow points to net energy exchange being the only viable option. Nothing else is physically possible, and would require faith to believe - or in your case lack of understanding.

 

[SSDD]

You poor idiot.....faith, by definition is belief in something not provable...all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say energy only flows spontaneously in one direction...belief in anything else, is by definition..faith.

Ad hominem doesn't prove your point.

Since you say gross and net flow both predict the same thing, all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say heat flow points to net energy exchange being the only viable option. Nothing else is physically possible, and would require faith to believe - or in your case lack of understanding.

You keep saying that...and when I ask for a single piece of observational evidence...actual measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow, you can't step up and provide it...all you can do is go back into your circular reasoning...claiming that the models prove that the models are correct.

 

[Crick]

Same Shit, you, with your smart photons and matter able to read temperatures across the universe, are the one with the requirement for extraordinary evidence. Find us ONE single authoritative source that says photons will not travel from cold to warm.

 

[Wuwei]

You keep saying that...and when I ask for a single piece of observational evidence...actual measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow, you can't step up and provide it...all you can do is go back into your circular reasoning...claiming that the models prove that the models are correct.

It's true and I will say it again: all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say net energy exchange is the only viable option. Nothing else is physically possible.

Now, you tell me exactly what actual observed measured evidence do you have that demands that radiation can only flow one way between bodies.

 

[Crick]

And how it "knows" what the temperature of a distant piece of matter might be.

 

[SSDD]

And how it "knows" what the temperature of a distant piece of matter might be.

Just like a rock knows which direction is down. Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.

 

[SSDD]

It's true and I will say it again: all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say net energy exchange is the only viable option. Nothing else is physically possible.

Saying it doesn't mean jack unless you can provide evidence to back it up...otherwise it is just bullshit. So lets see the measurements of spontaneous two way energy exchange between a cool object and a warm object. And to say that "nothing" else is physically possible is to express a depth of arrogant ignorance rarely seen....you actually believe that we know everything that is physically possible? You really believe that?

Now, you tell me exactly what actual observed measured evidence do you have that demands that radiation can only flow one way between bodies.

Like I have said over and over...every measurement ever made is of one way gross energy flow...when we measure energy radiating from warm objects, we don't detect energy moving towards the object from cooler objects...when we point a thermal camera at an object, the sensor is measuring temperature changes based on the difference between its own temperature and that of what it is pointed at...all observations and measurements are of one way gross energy exchange...no measurement has ever been made of spontaneous two way energy exchange between a warm object and a cooler object... Claiming that those observations are of net energy movement when the only energy exchange that can be measured is between warm and cool is just more claims that the emperors new clothes are beautiful...and only dupes are unaware that models don't provide evidence to prove themselves.

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit, you, with your smart photons and matter able to read temperatures across the universe, are the one with the requirement for extraordinary evidence. Find us ONE single authoritative source that says photons will not travel from cold to warm.

Only every measurement ever made...unless of course you can provide a measured observation of a photon moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...till you can provide that...till it is measured...it is just a story based on a model that is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable...you may hate having the fact pointed out to you but your position is one of faith...not actual evidence.

 

[Wuwei]

It's true and I will say it again: all the evidence, all the observations....all the measurements say net energy exchange is the only viable option. Nothing else is physically possible.

Saying it doesn't mean jack unless you can provide evidence to back it up...otherwise it is just bullshit. So lets see the measurements of spontaneous two way energy exchange between a cool object and a warm object. And to say that "nothing" else is physically possible is to express a depth of arrogant ignorance rarely seen....you actually believe that we know everything that is physically possible? You really believe that?

Now, you tell me exactly what actual observed measured evidence do you have that demands that radiation can only flow one way between bodies.

Like I have said over and over...every measurement ever made is of one way gross energy flow...when we measure energy radiating from warm objects, we don't detect energy moving towards the object from cooler objects...when we point a thermal camera at an object, the sensor is measuring temperature changes based on the difference between its own temperature and that of what it is pointed at...all observations and measurements are of one way gross energy exchange...no measurement has ever been made of spontaneous two way energy exchange between a warm object and a cooler object... Claiming that those observations are of net energy movement when the only energy exchange that can be measured is between warm and cool is just more claims that the emperors new clothes are beautiful...and only dupes are unaware that models don't provide evidence to prove themselves.

I asked what evidence demands that radiation can flow only one way. You didn't answer the question. All instrumental measurements are consistent with two way radiation exchange.

Your idea of "evidence" does not demand that you are right and all of science is wrong

 

[Crick]

Your faulty interpretation of observations is hardly an authoritative source - besides being a perfect example of circular logic.

I want to hear someone else with a graduate education in one of the hard sciences state that IR photons can only travel from warm to cold; that some unknown force prevents them from traveling from cold to warm and that somehow, all matter is able to know the temperature of all other matter in its view despite distance and is able to throttle its own emissions, taking relative motion and travel time into account. Those are your claims, are they not?

Got somebody?