Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

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.

No, not "every measurement ever made." Todd's reference to the CMB is an example of 2.7 K radiation penetrating the warmer atmosphere to strike a warmer microwave horn and on to a resonantly tuned detector at degrees 4 K.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.

Still no sources that agree with your interpretation of the laws of physics? Weird.

 

[Wuwei]

Just like a rock knows which direction is down. .

Yes, we already heard your theory of gravity.

Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.

My gosh. He is actually using the juvenile troll gambit "I know you are so what am I."

 

[Crick]

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.

Lets take a piece of matter at, say 100K, that happens to be floating in a gas cloud of 200K. We'll call this piece of matter, Chunk A. Per your contention, it cannot radiate in any direction.
Now another chunk of matter approaches. It is 98K. We'll call that Chunk B. Your contention says that A will radiate selectively in the direction of B (and you put no range limitations on this but I'll save that for another day). As B shoots past A, the beam of photons you believe A is able to emit in the direction of B will rotate to not only keep it in aim, but TO LEAD IT, since photons travel at a high, but finite velocity. When asked to suggest any mechanism that would allow or enforce such behavior, you tell us the "Second Law" (as if it were the Zeroth Commandment) and that we simply do not (and perhaps can not) know how this works.

Science, on the other hand, states that Chunk A is constantly emitting photons in all directions and of a spectrum appropriate to its temperature (per SB). Chunk B comes by, also emitting photons in all directions per its temperature. The net flow between the two results in an excess of photons (and the energy they contain) going from A to B. The result is the same as your scenario, but no insane voodoo is required.

It is a perfect violation of Occam's razor to reject a fully understood and mathematically symmetrical explanation for an observed phenomenon (radiative heat transfer) in favor of one which reeks of inexplainable actions and multiple violations of basic physical principles which you attempt to justify with "we don't know". I can see few causes for your choices here, but the most likely are:

1) You realized that you could use this to argue against the greenhouse effect
2) You are contrarian to the point of insanity
3) You are trolling
4) You are extraordinarily stupid.

And nothing prevents reality from being composed of a blend of these reasons.

 

[Wuwei]

Your chunk A, B example is a great example, but it's too sophisticated for SSDD's distorted view of science. He will simply invoke his usual unobservable, unmeasurable mantra. Or the empty “we don't know what reality is” mantra, or maybe the anti-model mantra although that's what physics actually is.

I agree with your points on his thought process, but I think of them as occurring in an evolution of idiocy.
My take is that first he started out totally anti global warming.
Then he embraced some blog about a misconception of the second law as saying energy is one-way flow to “prove” back-radiation didn't exist. He latched on to that with an obsessive extreme to rationalize his belief.
When confronted by people more experienced in science, he became a contrarian to the point of insanity.
His dialog was met with science insights that made his anti-science look stupid, so he moved to trolling more often.

He has attached his entire ego to his cause, and won't admit defeat under any circumstance. Is he stupid? I think he has “street smarts” like gang members who are adept at survival in tough neighborhoods. Fighting, not logic, is his major attribute. In this case it is his using strawmen, distractions, non-sequiturs, etc. Winning is more important than being correct.

You can see this because in his frustration at not winning, he is now turning to actual (verbal) fighting by using a bevvy of angry insults and taunting so he won't feel he is losing face with his audience of minions – JC, Billy Bob, Frank, etc. Those guys are his equals as far as “street fighting” but, not his equals at inventing novel distortions and misunderstandings of science. It will be interesting to see if this game stagnates, or will continue to unfold.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Lets take a piece of matter at, say 100K, that happens to be floating in a gas cloud of 200K. We'll call this piece of matter, Chunk A. Per your contention, it cannot radiate in any direction.
Now another chunk of matter approaches. It is 98K. We'll call that Chunk B. Your contention says that A will radiate selectively in the direction of B (and you put no range limitations on this but I'll save that for another day). As B shoots past A, the beam of photons you believe A is able to emit in the direction of B will rotate to not only keep it in aim, but TO LEAD IT, since photons travel at a high, but finite velocity. When asked to suggest any mechanism that would allow or enforce such behavior, you tell us the "Second Law" (as if it were the Zeroth Commandment) and that we simply do not (and perhaps can not) know how this works.

Science, on the other hand, states that Chunk A is constantly emitting photons in all directions and of a spectrum appropriate to its temperature (per SB). Chunk B comes by, also emitting photons in all directions per its temperature. The net flow between the two results in an excess of photons (and the energy they contain) going from A to B. The result is the same as your scenario, but no insane voodoo is required.

It is a perfect violation of Occam's razor to reject a fully understood and mathematically symmetrical explanation for an observed phenomenon (radiative heat transfer) in favor of one which reeks of inexplainable actions and multiple violations of basic physical principles which you attempt to justify with "we don't know". I can see few causes for your choices here, but the most likely are:

1) You realized that you could use this to argue against the greenhouse effect
2) You are contrarian to the point of insanity
3) You are trolling
4) You are extraordinarily stupid.

And nothing prevents reality from being composed of a blend of these reasons.

1) You realized that you could use this to argue against the greenhouse effect
2) You are contrarian to the point of insanity
3) You are trolling
4) You are extraordinarily stupid.

5) Smart photons
6) Magic emitters
7) Dimmer switches
8) Epicycles

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your chunk A, B example is a great example, but it's too sophisticated for SSDD's distorted view of science. He will simply invoke his usual unobservable, unmeasurable mantra. Or the empty “we don't know what reality is” mantra, or maybe the anti-model mantra although that's what physics actually is.

I agree with your points on his thought process, but I think of them as occurring in an evolution of idiocy.
My take is that first he started out totally anti global warming.
Then he embraced some blog about a misconception of the second law as saying energy is one-way flow to “prove” back-radiation didn't exist. He latched on to that with an obsessive extreme to rationalize his belief.
When confronted by people more experienced in science, he became a contrarian to the point of insanity.
His dialog was met with science insights that made his anti-science look stupid, so he moved to trolling more often.

He has attached his entire ego to his cause, and won't admit defeat under any circumstance. Is he stupid? I think he has “street smarts” like gang members who are adept at survival in tough neighborhoods. Fighting, not logic, is his major attribute. In this case it is his using strawmen, distractions, non-sequiturs, etc. Winning is more important than being correct.

You can see this because in his frustration at not winning, he is now turning to actual (verbal) fighting by using a bevvy of angry insults and taunting so he won't feel he is losing face with his audience of minions – JC, Billy Bob, Frank, etc. Those guys are his equals as far as “street fighting” but, not his equals at inventing novel distortions and misunderstandings of science. It will be interesting to see if this game stagnates, or will continue to unfold.

Then he embraced some blog about a misconception of the second law as saying energy is one-way flow to “prove” back-radiation didn't exist.

Some of SSDD's "arguments" sound like Claes Johnson. IMO

When confronted by people more experienced in science, he became a contrarian to the point of insanity. His dialog was met with science insights that made his anti-science look stupid, so he moved to trolling more often.​

You're right. As shown by his failure to provide any real source that agrees with his solo viewpoint.​

 

[Wuwei]

Some of SSDD's "arguments" sound like Claes Johnson. IMO

I looked up Claes. You are right. SSDD reads his play book. In his blog Claes gives an argument that SSDD has not used yet:

"back radiation" and "forward radiation" are supposed to be independent physical processes as "two-way flow of infrared photons", and at the same time, dependent coupled processes guaranteeing the the 2nd laws is not violated.

But independent processes which are dependent, is a contradiction​

His mistake here is saying that the two radiations must be dependent in order not to violate the 2nd law. They are not dependent. Objects that radiate care diddly squat about the 2nd law. Thus the radiation levels of different objects must not be seen as constrained, i.e. dependent.

It just so happens that the math exactly computes the right amount of emission and absorption, and it's the math that says the 2nd law is never violated. Coincidence? Not by a long shot. Kirchhoff showed the details of the physics that prohibit 2nd law violations of independent radiating objects. That lead to validity of the subtracted form of the SB equation. Stefan's original paper did not immediately promote the subtracted form because Kirchhoff's work came later.

 

[SSDD]

No, not "every measurement ever made." Todd's reference to the CMB is an example of 2.7 K radiation penetrating the warmer atmosphere to strike a warmer microwave horn and on to a resonantly tuned detector at degrees 4 K.

Yes...every measurement ever made...toddster's reference to CMB is just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation...even though it has been thoroughly explained that what was recorded at that radio telescope was a resonant radio frequency...not CMB toddster and apparently the rest of you yahoos remain fooled.

Tragic...simply tragic.

 

[SSDD]

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?

All you need do to prove me wrong skidmark is to find an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...we can certainly detect and measure very small energy movements...go find yourself an example of energy moving, with no work being applied, from a cool object to a warm object.

If you have to have a so called expert tell you what every observation and measurement ever made indicates, then you are at least as stupid as I have always thought you to be...

 

[SSDD]

Just like a rock knows which direction is down. .

Yes, we already heard your theory of gravity.

Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.

My gosh. He is actually using the juvenile troll gambit "I know you are so what am I."

Not my theory...it is you goof balls who seem to think that everything in the universe must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...

And I am just speaking at your level...you don't seem to be able to get past juvenile arguments...it is you who believes that you can validate a model with the output of the model...how much more juvenile can you get?

 

[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.

Lets take a piece of matter at, say 100K, that happens to be floating in a gas cloud of 200K. We'll call this piece of matter, Chunk A. Per your contention, it cannot radiate in any direction.
Now another chunk of matter approaches. It is 98K. We'll call that Chunk B. Your contention says that A will radiate selectively in the direction of B (and you put no range limitations on this but I'll save that for another day). As B shoots past A, the beam of photons you believe A is able to emit in the direction of B will rotate to not only keep it in aim, but TO LEAD IT, since photons travel at a high, but finite velocity. When asked to suggest any mechanism that would allow or enforce such behavior, you tell us the "Second Law" (as if it were the Zeroth Commandment) and that we simply do not (and perhaps can not) know how this works.

Science, on the other hand, states that Chunk A is constantly emitting photons in all directions and of a spectrum appropriate to its temperature (per SB). Chunk B comes by, also emitting photons in all directions per its temperature. The net flow between the two results in an excess of photons (and the energy they contain) going from A to B. The result is the same as your scenario, but no insane voodoo is required.

It is a perfect violation of Occam's razor to reject a fully understood and mathematically symmetrical explanation for an observed phenomenon (radiative heat transfer) in favor of one which reeks of inexplainable actions and multiple violations of basic physical principles which you attempt to justify with "we don't know". I can see few causes for your choices here, but the most likely are:

1) You realized that you could use this to argue against the greenhouse effect
2) You are contrarian to the point of insanity
3) You are trolling
4) You are extraordinarily stupid.

And nothing prevents reality from being composed of a blend of these reasons.

Trying to validate the predictions of a model with the output of the model? Are you really that stupid?

How about you just find a measured observation and stop chasing your tail in a never-ending loop of circular logic.

 

[SSDD]

Your chunk A, B example is a great example, but it's too sophisticated for SSDD's distorted view of science.

One more example of attempting to validate a model with a model...

You guys really are that stupid aren't you?

 

[SSDD]

Some of SSDD's "arguments" sound like Claes Johnson. IMO

I looked up Claes. You are right. SSDD reads his play book. In his blog Claes gives an argument that SSDD has not used yet:

"back radiation" and "forward radiation" are supposed to be independent physical processes as "two-way flow of infrared photons", and at the same time, dependent coupled processes guaranteeing the the 2nd laws is not violated.

But independent processes which are dependent, is a contradiction​

His mistake here is saying that the two radiations must be dependent in order not to violate the 2nd law. They are not dependent. Objects that radiate care diddly squat about the 2nd law. Thus the radiation levels of different objects must not be seen as constrained, i.e. dependent.

It just so happens that the math exactly computes the right amount of emission and absorption, and it's the math that says the 2nd law is never violated. Coincidence? Not by a long shot. Kirchhoff showed the details of the physics that prohibit 2nd law violations of independent radiating objects. That lead to validity of the subtracted form of the SB equation. Stefan's original paper did not immediately promote the subtracted form because Kirchhoff's work came later.

Got any measured observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? Measurements of a discrete frequency of energy radiating from a cool object being absorbed by a warmer object? Any at all?

Didn't think so. What you have is a never ending attempt to validate your model with the model itself, or mental experiments based upon the model. Newsflash...not science...that is faith....belief in the model...not actual evidence.

 

[Crick]

Got anything new? Care to explain why every scientist for the past century would say you were wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, not "every measurement ever made." Todd's reference to the CMB is an example of 2.7 K radiation penetrating the warmer atmosphere to strike a warmer microwave horn and on to a resonantly tuned detector at degrees 4 K.

Yes...every measurement ever made...toddster's reference to CMB is just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation...even though it has been thoroughly explained that what was recorded at that radio telescope was a resonant radio frequency...not CMB toddster and apparently the rest of you yahoos remain fooled.

Tragic...simply tragic.

has been thoroughly explained that what was recorded at that radio telescope was a resonant radio frequency...not CMB

A warm telescope at the bottom of a warmer atmosphere detected colder photons that didn't hit the telescope?

Wow!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some of SSDD's "arguments" sound like Claes Johnson. IMO

I looked up Claes. You are right. SSDD reads his play book. In his blog Claes gives an argument that SSDD has not used yet:

"back radiation" and "forward radiation" are supposed to be independent physical processes as "two-way flow of infrared photons", and at the same time, dependent coupled processes guaranteeing the the 2nd laws is not violated.

But independent processes which are dependent, is a contradiction​

His mistake here is saying that the two radiations must be dependent in order not to violate the 2nd law. They are not dependent. Objects that radiate care diddly squat about the 2nd law. Thus the radiation levels of different objects must not be seen as constrained, i.e. dependent.

It just so happens that the math exactly computes the right amount of emission and absorption, and it's the math that says the 2nd law is never violated. Coincidence? Not by a long shot. Kirchhoff showed the details of the physics that prohibit 2nd law violations of independent radiating objects. That lead to validity of the subtracted form of the SB equation. Stefan's original paper did not immediately promote the subtracted form because Kirchhoff's work came later.

Got any measured observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? Measurements of a discrete frequency of energy radiating from a cool object being absorbed by a warmer object? Any at all?

Didn't think so. What you have is a never ending attempt to validate your model with the model itself, or mental experiments based upon the model. Newsflash...not science...that is faith....belief in the model...not actual evidence.

Got any measured observation of objects at equilibrium ceasing all radiating?
Or is that claim based on your faith in a model?

 

[Wuwei]

No, not "every measurement ever made." Todd's reference to the CMB is an example of 2.7 K radiation penetrating the warmer atmosphere to strike a warmer microwave horn and on to a resonantly tuned detector at degrees 4 K.

Yes...every measurement ever made...toddster's reference to CMB is just one more example of being fooled by instrumentation...even though it has been thoroughly explained that what was recorded at that radio telescope was a resonant radio frequency...not CMB toddster and apparently the rest of you yahoos remain fooled.

Tragic...simply tragic.

Except for your usual ad hominem, you are exactly right. The 2.7K CMB radiation went through the warmer atmosphere hit a warmer reflector and then hit a resonantly tuned amplifier at a slightly warmer 4 K and then was recorded. A clear measure of cold radiation hitting a surface at ambient temperature.

Your phrase "... not CMB" of course refers to the trivial fact that the output of an amplifier is no longer the CMB, which was absorbed immediately upon hitting the tuned amplifier, and then became an electronic signal.

You think that output displays of recorded signals show people are fooled by instrumentation? You should realize that the output of every transducer in every measuring instrument does exactly the same thing. Do you distrust other instruments too?

 

[Wuwei]

Just like a rock knows which direction is down. .

Yes, we already heard your theory of gravity.

Amazing that you guys think that matter and energy must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics.

My gosh. He is actually using the juvenile troll gambit "I know you are so what am I."

Not my theory...it is you goof balls who seem to think that everything in the universe must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...

And I am just speaking at your level...you don't seem to be able to get past juvenile arguments...it is you who believes that you can validate a model with the output of the model...how much more juvenile can you get?

Wow. He did the "I know you are so what am I" troll gambit again! Are you going to try that for a third time on this post? Go for it!

 

[Wuwei]

Got any measured observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? Measurements of a discrete frequency of energy radiating from a cool object being absorbed by a warmer object? Any at all?

Yes. The cold CMB striking the warm earth.