The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

A friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if true, could it cause catastrophic warming. While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.

Lets go straight to the heart of AGW..

The premise is; energy absorbed by our atmosphere is re-emitted towards surface causing warming. The so called big player is CO2, that re-emits energy in a narrow band at 12-16um.

The problems come from several sources when it comes to energy transmission;

1. The electrical state of the molecule. Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state. In a positive state the molecule either reflects the energy or passes it. Each molecule also reacts differently to different wavelengths of energy. Not only does the molecule have to be in the right state it must also be in the range it is capable of reacting to.

2. The time energy resides within the molecule. Water has a very long residency time while CO2 a very short one. CO2 will not warm unless it collides with a warmer object (conduction), where water will absorb and use the energy to warm. Absent another warmer object, CO2 passes energy rapidly and can not warm.

3. The mass/mass conversion of energy. A mass emitting at -80 Deg F can not warm a mass that is warmer. The mass, as a whole, will lose energy more slowly logarithmicly to its surroundings simply due to the increase of mass.

In order to discuss this, one must agree on basic items. First, we must agree that all matter emits energy in all directions above absolute zero (0 deg K). Second, we must agree on how differing energy excitements affect one another. (This is the one which is not settled.) This is the crux of the AGW meme. Depending on the outcome of this determines the failure of the hypothesis, specifically any multiplier of effect (sensitivity).

SO.... How do two molecules, of differing temperatures, affect each-other. How does the energy emitted affect each molecule?

In my next post I will explain what I observe...

Did you actually write all of this? That's the biggest load of pseudo-scientific bullshit I've seen in a month of sundays.

Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state.

He never did explain what the above means.

He posts so much baloney, I think his real name is Oscar Mayer.

Again such bull shit.... you know exactly what the negative or low state of a molecule is and several people have tried to explain it.. Too bad you didn't like the answer.. Weird how some can be disingenuous that way..

To true...it all logical fallacy all the time with them. It's the only weapon they have in this discussion. They certainly can't bring any real objective science to bear....apply even the smallest bit of the skepticism required by science and the whole AGW hypothesis begins to disintegrate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.

What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.

your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where does the 2nd Law mention photons again?

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

I noticed you're still afraid to discuss the thermodynamics of heating my home in winter.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer...one can only speak so much to crazy...your walls in winter seem to have had the same sort of mental effect that EM radiation have had on wuwei...

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

If that were the case, you'd have dozens of sources backing up your unique interpretation. Hundreds.
Instead you have none. Weird.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer.

No, you haven't. Not even once.
I'll give you another chance.

The temperature in Chicago in December is 20F.
I turn on my furnace and eventually the walls of my home reach 70F.
Is that because work was done to raise their temperature?

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace but some of the work came from the 20F outside temperatures warming the wall above 20F.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.

What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.

your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where does the 2nd Law mention photons again?

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

I noticed you're still afraid to discuss the thermodynamics of heating my home in winter.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer...one can only speak so much to crazy...your walls in winter seem to have had the same sort of mental effect that EM radiation have had on wuwei...

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

If that were the case, you'd have dozens of sources backing up your unique interpretation. Hundreds.
Instead you have none. Weird.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer.

No, you haven't. Not even once.
I'll give you another chance.

The temperature in Chicago in December is 20F.
I turn on my furnace and eventually the walls of my home reach 70F.
Is that because work was done to raise their temperature?

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace but some of the work came from the 20F outside temperatures warming the wall above 20F.

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace

Excellent!
So that explains why the 70F walls can emit toward my 98F body.
Don't tell SSDD.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A friend of mine asked me the other day what was back radiation capable of and if true, could it cause catastrophic warming. While the explanation of our deserts does a fine job of showing AGW a complete failure, I am taking a look at the molecular level as to why it can not cause this.

Lets go straight to the heart of AGW..

The premise is; energy absorbed by our atmosphere is re-emitted towards surface causing warming. The so called big player is CO2, that re-emits energy in a narrow band at 12-16um.

The problems come from several sources when it comes to energy transmission;

1. The electrical state of the molecule. Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state. In a positive state the molecule either reflects the energy or passes it. Each molecule also reacts differently to different wavelengths of energy. Not only does the molecule have to be in the right state it must also be in the range it is capable of reacting to.

2. The time energy resides within the molecule. Water has a very long residency time while CO2 a very short one. CO2 will not warm unless it collides with a warmer object (conduction), where water will absorb and use the energy to warm. Absent another warmer object, CO2 passes energy rapidly and can not warm.

3. The mass/mass conversion of energy. A mass emitting at -80 Deg F can not warm a mass that is warmer. The mass, as a whole, will lose energy more slowly logarithmicly to its surroundings simply due to the increase of mass.

In order to discuss this, one must agree on basic items. First, we must agree that all matter emits energy in all directions above absolute zero (0 deg K). Second, we must agree on how differing energy excitements affect one another. (This is the one which is not settled.) This is the crux of the AGW meme. Depending on the outcome of this determines the failure of the hypothesis, specifically any multiplier of effect (sensitivity).

SO.... How do two molecules, of differing temperatures, affect each-other. How does the energy emitted affect each molecule?

In my next post I will explain what I observe...

Did you actually write all of this? That's the biggest load of pseudo-scientific bullshit I've seen in a month of sundays.

Molecules will only accept energy in a negative state.

He never did explain what the above means.

He posts so much baloney, I think his real name is Oscar Mayer.

Again such bull shit.... you know exactly what the negative or low state of a molecule is and several people have tried to explain it.. Too bad you didn't like the answer.. Weird how some can be disingenuous that way..

To true...it all logical fallacy all the time with them. It's the only weapon they have in this discussion. They certainly can't bring any real objective science to bear....apply even the smallest bit of the skepticism required by science and the whole AGW hypothesis begins to disintegrate.

apply even the smallest bit of the skepticism required by science and the whole AGW hypothesis begins to disintegrate.

I destroyed AGW just by pointing out your confusion? Excellent!

That AGW crap is a giant waste of time and money.
Now that we got that out of the way.....let's get back to your confusion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.

What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.

your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where does the 2nd Law mention photons again?

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

I noticed you're still afraid to discuss the thermodynamics of heating my home in winter.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer...one can only speak so much to crazy...your walls in winter seem to have had the same sort of mental effect that EM radiation have had on wuwei...

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

If that were the case, you'd have dozens of sources backing up your unique interpretation. Hundreds.
Instead you have none. Weird.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer.

No, you haven't. Not even once.
I'll give you another chance.

The temperature in Chicago in December is 20F.
I turn on my furnace and eventually the walls of my home reach 70F.
Is that because work was done to raise their temperature?

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace but some of the work came from the 20F outside temperatures warming the wall above 20F.

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace

Excellent!
So that explains why the 70F walls can emit toward my 98F body.
Don't tell SSDD.

How long would it take the 20F outside to warm the house to 70F?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Theoretically, there's nothing stopping the 20F exterior temperature from heating the house to hundreds of degrees, set it on fire. Maybe it's the cold night air that starts forest fires??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So after all that, your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. According to you, any electromagnetic radiation from 10 megameters to 1 picometer may move freely from cool objects to warm objects.

What is unbelievable is the fact that you apparently think that is a rational argument.

your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where does the 2nd Law mention photons again?

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

I noticed you're still afraid to discuss the thermodynamics of heating my home in winter.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer...one can only speak so much to crazy...your walls in winter seem to have had the same sort of mental effect that EM radiation have had on wuwei...

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

If that were the case, you'd have dozens of sources backing up your unique interpretation. Hundreds.
Instead you have none. Weird.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer.

No, you haven't. Not even once.
I'll give you another chance.

The temperature in Chicago in December is 20F.
I turn on my furnace and eventually the walls of my home reach 70F.
Is that because work was done to raise their temperature?

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace but some of the work came from the 20F outside temperatures warming the wall above 20F.

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace

Excellent!
So that explains why the 70F walls can emit toward my 98F body.
Don't tell SSDD.

So that's why you run a 102 fever- too close to the walls

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

your argument is that hard x-rays, soft x-rays, extreme ultraviolet, near ultraviolet, visible light, near infrared, moderate infrared, far infrared, extremely high frequency microwaves, super high frequency microwaves, UHF, VHF, HF, MF,LF, VLF, VF, and ELF are all exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where does the 2nd Law mention photons again?

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

I noticed you're still afraid to discuss the thermodynamics of heating my home in winter.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer...one can only speak so much to crazy...your walls in winter seem to have had the same sort of mental effect that EM radiation have had on wuwei...

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

If that were the case, you'd have dozens of sources backing up your unique interpretation. Hundreds.
Instead you have none. Weird.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer.

No, you haven't. Not even once.
I'll give you another chance.

The temperature in Chicago in December is 20F.
I turn on my furnace and eventually the walls of my home reach 70F.
Is that because work was done to raise their temperature?

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace but some of the work came from the 20F outside temperatures warming the wall above 20F.

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace

Excellent!
So that explains why the 70F walls can emit toward my 98F body.
Don't tell SSDD.

How long would it take the 20F outside to warm the house to 70F?

Why would the outside at 20F heat up the 20F inside?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer...one can only speak so much to crazy...your walls in winter seem to have had the same sort of mental effect that EM radiation have had on wuwei...

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

If that were the case, you'd have dozens of sources backing up your unique interpretation. Hundreds.
Instead you have none. Weird.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer.

No, you haven't. Not even once.
I'll give you another chance.

The temperature in Chicago in December is 20F.
I turn on my furnace and eventually the walls of my home reach 70F.
Is that because work was done to raise their temperature?

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace but some of the work came from the 20F outside temperatures warming the wall above 20F.

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace

Excellent!
So that explains why the 70F walls can emit toward my 98F body.
Don't tell SSDD.

How long would it take the 20F outside to warm the house to 70F?

Why would the outside at 20F heat up the 20F inside?

If cooler radiates toward warmer, then what's the upper limit?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since the second laws speaks to energy...and photons are energy, they would have to be specifically excluded from the laws of energy exchange.

If that were the case, you'd have dozens of sources backing up your unique interpretation. Hundreds.
Instead you have none. Weird.

Already done that...sorry you didn't like the answer.

No, you haven't. Not even once.
I'll give you another chance.

The temperature in Chicago in December is 20F.
I turn on my furnace and eventually the walls of my home reach 70F.
Is that because work was done to raise their temperature?

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace but some of the work came from the 20F outside temperatures warming the wall above 20F.

According to your understanding most of the work came from the furnace

Excellent!
So that explains why the 70F walls can emit toward my 98F body.
Don't tell SSDD.

How long would it take the 20F outside to warm the house to 70F?

Why would the outside at 20F heat up the 20F inside?

If cooler radiates toward warmer, then what's the upper limit?

If cooler radiates toward warmer, then what's the upper limit?

Everything radiates in every direction.

 

[Wuwei]

Like I said...you are trying to find a loophole in the second law which would allow energy to flow freely from a cool object to a warm object.

That is a gross misunderstanding of what you think is meant by radiation exchange between objects. There is no “loophole”. Radiation exchange is simply how nature works, and it does not ever violate the 2nd law. Entropy always increases.

engineers assure us that LED's are not an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool body to a warm body.

What engineers assure us of that?

An LED flashlight is an example of how EM radiation from a cold source can hit a hotter surface. The junction temperature of an LED in a penlight can easily be well below the temperature of an outdoor surface. The 2nd law is not violated. Why do you think it is?

Here are a couple of papers which will not convince you in the least that you are wrong, but they do explain in some detail how terribly you have misinterpreted several radiation laws in your attempt to get around the second law of thermodynamics.

http://tech-know-group.com/papers/IR-absorption_updated.pdf

https://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM_REYNEN_Planck_absorption.pdf

If you find any problems or errors, by all means point them out...if you just want to hurl some logical fallacies in an impotent attempt to discredit, I will certainly understand..it is, after all, the only weapon you have at your disposal in this discussion,

I agree with both papers. The author's main point which he makes over a dozen times is that back radiation of heat does not happen. I agree that heat can only flow from hot to cold substances, and not back. I'm sure all physicists agree with that.

The author says nothing about photons. The essence of the SB equation is that through the emission and absorption of EM radiation, heat always flows one way from hot to cold surfaces while the radiation is both ways. I have no problem with the author's main conclusion.

You still haven't given a valid atomic principle that prevents accelerating charges from emitting EM radiation to a hotter body, or why black body radiation can possibly be inhibited by a remote condition.

 

[SSDD]

Entropy always increases.[/quote

And energy, in any form never moves spontaneously from cold to warm.

An LED flashlight is an example of how EM radiation from a cold source can hit a hotter surface. The junction temperature of an LED in a penlight can easily be well below the temperature of an outdoor surface. The 2nd law is not violated. Why do you think it is?

Guess you never looked at an LED outside of a flashlight. Try it some time...note that the heat sink they are sitting on is positively enormous relative to the size of the LED. Then ask yourself why a cold source would need such an enormous heat sink...

The author says nothing about photons. The essence of the SB equation is that through the emission and absorption of EM radiation, heat always flows one way from hot to cold surfaces while the radiation is both ways. I have no problem with the author's main conclusion.

Of course he does...heat is the result of energy moving from one place to another....in the case of radiation, that is only possible via photons...so when he is talking about heat, he is talking about the movement of photons since radiation can move no other way.

You still haven't given a valid atomic principle that prevents accelerating charges from emitting EM radiation to a hotter body, or why black body radiation can possibly be inhibited by a remote condition.

And this is just one more bullshit dodge on your part...or perhaps your ignorance showing again...Maybe you really do think that science knows everything. Tell you what, you describe what causes a molecule to vibrate, and then describe, precisely, the mechanism by which that vibration is translated to outgoing radiation, then we can look at those mechanisms and see how they may or may not be effected by radiation from other sources. This should be interesting, and surely there will be a Nobel in it for you since science at present, has little more than wild assed guesses as to how an internal vibration of a molecule is translated into outgoing radiation.

It is ridiculous to ask for a mechanism which might account for the fact that radiation can not move spontaneously from cold to hot when you can't even describe the mechanism by which the vibration is translated into outgoing radiation or why the molecule vibrates for that matter. Since you have no idea how the vibration is translated into outgoing radiation, you have no basis for asking for a mechanism that comes after. Perhaps when we understand the mechanism that results in ongoing radiation, we will have the answer as to why it can't move spontaneously from cool to warm.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Entropy always increases.[/quote

And energy, in any form never moves spontaneously from cold to warm.

An LED flashlight is an example of how EM radiation from a cold source can hit a hotter surface. The junction temperature of an LED in a penlight can easily be well below the temperature of an outdoor surface. The 2nd law is not violated. Why do you think it is?

Guess you never looked at an LED outside of a flashlight. Try it some time...note that the heat sink they are sitting on is positively enormous relative to the size of the LED. Then ask yourself why a cold source would need such an enormous heat sink...

The author says nothing about photons. The essence of the SB equation is that through the emission and absorption of EM radiation, heat always flows one way from hot to cold surfaces while the radiation is both ways. I have no problem with the author's main conclusion.

Of course he does...heat is the result of energy moving from one place to another....in the case of radiation, that is only possible via photons...so when he is talking about heat, he is talking about the movement of photons since radiation can move no other way.

You still haven't given a valid atomic principle that prevents accelerating charges from emitting EM radiation to a hotter body, or why black body radiation can possibly be inhibited by a remote condition.

And this is just one more bullshit dodge on your part...or perhaps your ignorance showing again...Maybe you really do think that science knows everything. Tell you what, you describe what causes a molecule to vibrate, and then describe, precisely, the mechanism by which that vibration is translated to outgoing radiation, then we can look at those mechanisms and see how they may or may not be effected by radiation from other sources. This should be interesting, and surely there will be a Nobel in it for you since science at present, has little more than wild assed guesses as to how an internal vibration of a molecule is translated into outgoing radiation.

It is ridiculous to ask for a mechanism which might account for the fact that radiation can not move spontaneously from cold to hot when you can't even describe the mechanism by which the vibration is translated into outgoing radiation or why the molecule vibrates for that matter. Since you have no idea how the vibration is translated into outgoing radiation, you have no basis for asking for a mechanism that comes after. Perhaps when we understand the mechanism that results in ongoing radiation, we will have the answer as to why it can't move spontaneously from cool to warm.

heat is the result of energy moving from one place to another....in the case of radiation, that is only possible via photons...so when he is talking about heat, he is talking about the movement of photons since radiation can move no other way.

That's why you never post any sources that claim photons only move one way.
DERP!

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD:
Guess you never looked at an LED outside of a flashlight. Try it some time...note that the heat sink they are sitting on is positively enormous relative to the size of the LED. Then ask yourself why a cold source would need such an enormous heat sink...​

I have worked with low power LED's since the late 70's. The heat sink size means nothing. The junction temperature is what counts. A pen flashlight does not need a special heat sink. LEDs can easily function with junction temperature below 70C. A dark car in the sun can get to 78C. That is an example of how a colder object can radiate to a hotter object.

With reference to the papers you cited I said, “The author says nothing about photons.” And your reply was

“Of course he does...”

It's obvious that you never read the papers that you cited. You often do that. Read the paper and you will see that the author says nothing about photons. Throughout the paper the author continually refers to the work of Pierre Prevost. You obviously didn't know that Provost did his work in 1791. Stefan came later with his work in 1879. Prevost knew nothing about photons or LW radiation. Neither did Stefan. So the author was not talking about LW radiation. He was talking about heat. Read the papers before you say anything about it. Or maybe you did read the paper but understood nothing.

SSDD:
Tell you what, you describe what causes a molecule to vibrate, and then describe, precisely, the mechanism by which that vibration is translated to outgoing radiation,​

Everything you want to know is in the classical description by Maxwell's equations and especially Schrodinger's equations. You are again dodging physics and attempting to put up a metaphysics smoke screen distraction. That is not physics! You simply have no argument and are just being a troll again.

 

[SSDD]

It's obvious that you never read the papers that you cited. You often do that. Read the paper and you will see that the author says nothing about photons. Throughout the paper the author continually refers to the work of Pierre Prevost. You obviously didn't know that Provost did his work in 1791. Stefan came later with his work in 1879. Prevost knew nothing about photons or LW radiation. Neither did Stefan. So the author was not talking about LW radiation. He was talking about heat. Read the papers before you say anything about it. Or maybe you did read the paper but understood nothing.

Heat is the movement of radiation..and radiation only moves in the form pf photons...sorry guy...you can't beat the second law..and there are no examples whatsoever of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...there are plenty of examples of people being fooled into thinking that they have examples.

Everything you want to know is in the classical description by Maxwell's equations and especially Schrodinger's equations. You are again dodging physics and attempting to put up a metaphysics smoke screen distraction. That is not physics! You simply have no argument and are just being a troll again.

I can't help but notice that you didn't describe anything like a mechanism by which an internal vibration is translated into outgoing radiation...that would be because science doesn't even begin to understand that mechanism. Again, it is clear that you believe science knows everything and even when it is clear that it doesn't you can't bring yourself to admit it. Pretty much like any religious zealot. If you think science understands the mechanism, then by all means post it.

If you post anything it will turn out to be more evidence that you are completely ignorant...probably not even understanding what the word mechanism means.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's obvious that you never read the papers that you cited. You often do that. Read the paper and you will see that the author says nothing about photons. Throughout the paper the author continually refers to the work of Pierre Prevost. You obviously didn't know that Provost did his work in 1791. Stefan came later with his work in 1879. Prevost knew nothing about photons or LW radiation. Neither did Stefan. So the author was not talking about LW radiation. He was talking about heat. Read the papers before you say anything about it. Or maybe you did read the paper but understood nothing.

Heat is the movement of radiation..and radiation only moves in the form pf photons...sorry guy...you can't beat the second law..and there are no examples whatsoever of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...there are plenty of examples of people being fooled into thinking that they have examples.

Everything you want to know is in the classical description by Maxwell's equations and especially Schrodinger's equations. You are again dodging physics and attempting to put up a metaphysics smoke screen distraction. That is not physics! You simply have no argument and are just being a troll again.

I can't help but notice that you didn't describe anything like a mechanism by which an internal vibration is translated into outgoing radiation...that would be because science doesn't even begin to understand that mechanism. Again, it is clear that you believe science knows everything and even when it is clear that it doesn't you can't bring yourself to admit it. Pretty much like any religious zealot. If you think science understands the mechanism, then by all means post it.

If you post anything it will turn out to be more evidence that you are completely ignorant...probably not even understanding what the word mechanism means.

and there are no examples whatsoever of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...there are plenty of examples of people being fooled into thinking that they have examples.​

Good old SSDD. He has no sources that back up his one-way flow of radiation, but he knows
that the Handbook of Modern Sensors was fooled.

 

[Wuwei]

Heat is the movement of radiation..and radiation only moves in the form pf photons...sorry guy...you can't beat the second law..and there are no examples whatsoever of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...there are plenty of examples of people being fooled into thinking that they have examples.

I referenced a book that you cited. Now you are criticizing the very book you cited! Wow, you didn't understand it at all. Just why did you cite it?

It seems you have given up on denying the reality of an LED causing radiation to flow from a colder to a warmer substance.

I can't help but notice that you didn't describe anything like a mechanism by which an internal vibration is translated into outgoing radiation...that would be because science doesn't even begin to understand that mechanism. Again, it is clear that you believe science knows everything and even when it is clear that it doesn't you can't bring yourself to admit it. Pretty much like any religious zealot. If you think science understands the mechanism, then by all means post it.

Now you are oozing with hypocrisy. You take a stance which no scientist believes, and then say scientists don't know what amounts to the metaphysical mechanism for their science. But nevertheless you never question the metaphysical mechanism of your own belief but expect science too. That is pure hypocrisy. Is that the best you can do? Metaphysics is not physics. You have lost all credibility. As I suspected you are at the intellectual level of Frank, Sunsettommy, JC, Billy Bob, etc.

 

[SSDD]

Good old SSDD. He has no sources that back up his one-way flow of radiation, but he knows
that the Handbook of Modern Sensors was fooled.

I have the second law of thermodynamics which states that it is not possible for energy to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....you have opinions, and occasionally a drawing illustrating an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. So in the end, what do you have? Nothing...In the end what do I have? The second law of thermodynamics saying that it isn't possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm. Who has the better source? You with some opinions and a few drawings illustrating the opinions or me with the second law of thermodynamics?

 

[SSDD]

I referenced a book that you cited. Now you are criticizing the very book you cited! Wow, you didn't understand it at all. Just why did you cite it?

I cited it because it explains why you are mistaken. I didn't take into account the fact that you will twist, interpret, and pervert anything into a form that seems to support you, regardless of how wrong it is. Case in point:

Still waiting for you to describe any form of electromagnetic energy...or any movement of electromagnetic energy which isn't in the form of photons? You claim that photons are exempt from the second law of thermodynamics but not electromagnetic radiation, and yet, the only form electromagnetic takes is that of photons. Interesting that you can't see the disconnect in your logic there.

It seems you have given up on denying the reality of an LED causing radiation to flow from a colder to a warmer substance

What is to talk about? You are under the impression that the light leaving an LED is a spontaneous energy movement...you couldn't be more wrong. You claim that the enormous heat sink upon which LEDs sit is irrelevant, but the whole purpose is to extract heat during the process of converting energy to light. Hardly a spontaneous process and if it is not spontaneous, then it isn't an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

​

Now you are oozing with hypocrisy. You take a stance which no scientist believes, and then say scientists don't know what amounts to the metaphysical mechanism for their science. But nevertheless you never question the metaphysical mechanism of your own belief but expect science too. That is pure hypocrisy. Is that the best you can do? Metaphysics is not physics. You have lost all credibility. As I suspected you are at the intellectual level of Frank, Sunsettommy, JC, Billy Bob, etc.

Typical, distort your own hypocricy in an attempt to deny it and accuse someone else of the exact thing that you are doing.

You are taking a stance which is nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. And alas, it is you who is the hypocrite...insisting that I provide the mechanism by which energy is prevented from moving spontaneously from cool to warm in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics when you can't describe the mechanism by which that energy is changed from an internal vibration to outgoing radiation. That means that the mechanism by which energy is prevented from moving spontaneously from cool to warm may be found within the mechanism by which the internal vibration is translated to outgoing radiation.

That being the case, we have reached an impass and the second law still says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm and you still have nothing but an opinion and an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model, and not the first piece of observed, measured evidence in support of either...….and the wrong assumption that there is no difference between spontaneous energy movement and stimulated energy movement.

 

[Wuwei]

I cited it because it explains why you are mistaken. I didn't take into account the fact that you will twist, interpret, and pervert anything into a form that seems to support you, regardless of how wrong it is. Case in point:

I already told you I agreed with the paper. So you, Mr Hypocrite are now twisting and perverting.

You claim that photons are exempt from the second law of thermodynamics but not electromagnetic radiation

You are lying and you know it. It is the paper you cited that did not mention photons. The author was not talking about photons or EM energy he was talking about heat and I agreed with what he said. You are always citing papers that disagree with you.

What is to talk about? You are under the impression that the light leaving an LED is a spontaneous energy movement...you couldn't be more wrong. You claim that the enormous heat sink upon which LEDs sit is irrelevant, but the whole purpose is to extract heat during the process of converting energy to light. Hardly a spontaneous process and if it is not spontaneous, then it isn't an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

You couldn't be more wrong. Penlights have no heat sink and still a lower junction temperature than some natural objects. They can emit photons or EM radiation to a warmer object. They follow the physics definition of spontaneous. An you have no argument against that. Period.

You are taking a stance which is nothing more than the output of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

Physics is mathematical models. If you don't believe that then you don't believe physics. You were shown time and again that EM energy or photons can flow anywhere impeded only by matter at any temperature. Since you don't believe atomic physics which was observed, measured, tested and verified to parts per billion, then you are only left with your trolldom of faith. You can mock 372 thousand physicists if you want, but it really makes a mockery of you.

That being the case, we have reached an impass

Not we. You have reached an impasse since your faith barricades you from the success of physics, and you judge nature by what you think is "elegant" or "face value", or metaphysics. It seems your only recourse now is to lie, be a troll, and make bitter caustic remarks.