Yes, 97%

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.

You can yell at him all you want but it isn't going to change his mind. If he relinquishes that point then his worldview of physics collapses. He aint gonna do it.

I know, his frustration must be unbearable.
Everyone here disagrees with his claim, but he can't post a single source that agrees with him.

Not in the least...I don't need encouragement or reassurance from anyone

It's just you against the world.
And we're all laughing at you.

Be brave.

 

[IanC]

SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.

You can yell at him all you want but it isn't going to change his mind. If he relinquishes that point then his worldview of physics collapses. He aint gonna do it.

I know, his frustration must be unbearable.
Everyone here disagrees with his claim, but he can't post a single source that agrees with him.

Not in the least...I don't need encouragement or reassurance from anyone

I am surprised that you took my comment as suporr or encouragement. I thought it was belittling.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.

You can yell at him all you want but it isn't going to change his mind. If he relinquishes that point then his worldview of physics collapses. He aint gonna do it.

I know, his frustration must be unbearable.
Everyone here disagrees with his claim, but he can't post a single source that agrees with him.

Not in the least...I don't need encouragement or reassurance from anyone

It's just you against the world.
And we're all laughing at you.

Be brave.

My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,.... courage is hardly needed...you and yours, on the other hand speaking from a position of faith, with absolutely no physical evidence in support of your position....well, I commend your faith.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.

You can yell at him all you want but it isn't going to change his mind. If he relinquishes that point then his worldview of physics collapses. He aint gonna do it.

I know, his frustration must be unbearable.
Everyone here disagrees with his claim, but he can't post a single source that agrees with him.

Not in the least...I don't need encouragement or reassurance from anyone

I am surprised that you took my comment as suporr or encouragement. I thought it was belittling.

Sorry, I didn't take it as encouragement or support...did I not explicitly state that I didn't need encouragement of reassurance from anyone?...You guys read words and simply make up these whole stories in your heads about what they mean rather than simply taking them at face value. Maybe that is because straight talk is so alien to you...believing in the unseen, and unmeasurable, and untestable as you do...I guess you spend a lot of time talking around how so little of what you believe is proven in any real way....

 

[Billy_Bob]

SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.

You can yell at him all you want but it isn't going to change his mind. If he relinquishes that point then his worldview of physics collapses. He aint gonna do it.

ALL MATTER EMITS ENERGY. The amount of energy stored is what determines in which direction it travels. (more positive to less positive until it reaches zero K). This is why I used the analogy of two hoses facing each other. There is always flow from both hoses. It is the stronger flow which overcomes the slower flow (which just happens to be more positive to less positive). When two bodies of matter reach equilibrium they each equally radiate to the other.

I have tired many times to explain this theroy to some and they never grasp the concept. I feel your pain.

 

[Billy_Bob]

SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.

You can yell at him all you want but it isn't going to change his mind. If he relinquishes that point then his worldview of physics collapses. He aint gonna do it.

If I accept 2 way energy flow I leave the realm of observation and the real and enter the realm of faith. Let me know when two way energy flow is observed

You have two light bulbs side by side.

Do they both emit energy?

When viewed from the side (side by side) you can see one is a 40 watt bulb and the other is a 100 watt bulb. They are both emitting energy just like every molecule does. Energy from the 40 is making its way to the 100 watt bulb and the 100 watt bulb is sending energy to the 40 watt bulb. You will feel the stronger heat of the 100 watt bulb because it is the stronger source.

When viewed head on you see the 100 watt bulb only. WHY?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.

You can yell at him all you want but it isn't going to change his mind. If he relinquishes that point then his worldview of physics collapses. He aint gonna do it.

I know, his frustration must be unbearable.
Everyone here disagrees with his claim, but he can't post a single source that agrees with him.

Not in the least...I don't need encouragement or reassurance from anyone

It's just you against the world.
And we're all laughing at you.

Be brave.

My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,.... courage is hardly needed...you and yours, on the other hand speaking from a position of faith, with absolutely no physical evidence in support of your position....well, I commend your faith.

My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,....

That is awesome! So post a couple that mention one way flow. Be brave.

 

[Crick]

.believing in the unseen, and unmeasurable, and untestable as you do...I guess you spend a lot of time talking around how so little of what you believe is proven in any real way....

Those "unseen", "unmeasurable" and "untestable" phenomena have allowed the science of physics to progress to things like the LHC's detection of the Higgs boson at CERN, high-temperature superconductors, molecular laser traps, Bose-Einstein condensates, controlled fusion reactions, quantum computing devices and thousands of other wonders of science. Not ONE single person involved in ANY of that work, for more than the last century, agrees with you on these points. Not one.

I think it's time you considered the possibility that you're wrong.

 

[SSDD]

My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,....

That is awesome! So post a couple that mention one way flow. Be brave.

Why would anyone taking, and logging measurements feel the need to state what is self evident? What would be noteworthy would be an actual observation and measurement of energy flowing in two directions....Got any of those? Of course you don't because it doesn't happen.

 

[SSDD]

.believing in the unseen, and unmeasurable, and untestable as you do...I guess you spend a lot of time talking around how so little of what you believe is proven in any real way....

Those "unseen", "unmeasurable" and "untestable" phenomena have allowed the science of physics to progress to things like the LHC's detection of the Higgs boson at CERN, high-temperature superconductors, molecular laser traps, Bose-Einstein condensates, controlled fusion reactions, quantum computing devices and thousands of other wonders of science. Not ONE single person involved in ANY of that work, for more than the last century, agrees with you on these points. Not one.

I think it's time you considered the possibility that you're wrong.

Actually, they haven't. What you have are stories about the unseen, untestable, and unmeasurable....none of it is proven because it remains unseen, untestable, and unmeasurable...some parts of the stories correlate with what can be tested, but as we all know correlation is not causation. QM is rife with contradictions because it is just a story about what can't bee seen, tested, or measured. It is like the three blind men examining an elephant...Where the microscopic is concerned...all of science is still blind...feeling around and making up stories about what they think they would be feeling if they actually could feel anything at that level.

Ian, for example, claiming that light waves can only cancel, interfere with, or amplify each other if someone is watching...How wacky is that. You people believing that statistics is an actual mechanism for anything...the fact is that large numbers of particles are modeled statistically under the ASSUMPTION that there is no interaction between the particles and that the system being modeled is at equilibrium. Ian takes that to mean that photons in reality do not interact rather than that his model assumes that they do not interact.

As to considering the possibility that I am wrong...sure, when you can present some actual evidence that I am wrong....as soon as you can present an actual measurement of a warm object radiating energy out and absorbing energy in from a cooler object at the same time. So far, all we have is measurements of cooler objects absorbing energy from warmer objects...every measurement ever taken tells the same story.

Perhaps it is time for you guys to put on your big girl panties and acknowledge that what you believe in is a mathematical model...what you believe to be happening has never been measured or observed....and it just pisses you off that I don't believe what you believe. I watch science discard long held beliefs every day...new knowledge comes along and we find that what we thought we knew....we didn't. As time moves on, post modern science will take more of those hits than classical science because so much of post modern science is, in fact, models....unobserved, untested, unmeasured...simply assumed...

 

[Crick]

**** you you idiot

 

[SSDD]

**** you you idiot

Afraid it is you who is fucked...you believe....except you can't bring yourself to admit to yourself that you believe...you like to imagine yourself as a rational being who is only swayed by the facts, but your whole point of view on this topic is built upon a belief in a mathematical model....no hard evidence....no repeatable experimentation....no direct observation....no scientific method....just a mathematical model and some correlatory evidence. You are operating from a position of belief...not hard evidence. I am the one here who is operating from the position of reality...what can be seen, observed, measured...and all observations, and measurements are of energy flowing from a higher state to a lower state...warmer to cooler...none at all of energy moving in the other direction. You believe in something you can't see...I believe in what we all see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,....

That is awesome! So post a couple that mention one way flow. Be brave.

Why would anyone taking, and logging measurements feel the need to state what is self evident? What would be noteworthy would be an actual observation and measurement of energy flowing in two directions....Got any of those? Of course you don't because it doesn't happen.

You self evidence is disproven by your inability to post proof of one way flow.
Science magazine, the Physics textbook I posted and everyone on the thread is wrong.
But you're right. LOL!
Stay strong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

**** you you idiot

Afraid it is you who is fucked...you believe....except you can't bring yourself to admit to yourself that you believe...you like to imagine yourself as a rational being who is only swayed by the facts, but your whole point of view on this topic is built upon a belief in a mathematical model....no hard evidence....no repeatable experimentation....no direct observation....no scientific method....just a mathematical model and some correlatory evidence. You are operating from a position of belief...not hard evidence. I am the one here who is operating from the position of reality...what can be seen, observed, measured...and all observations, and measurements are of energy flowing from a higher state to a lower state...warmer to cooler...none at all of energy moving in the other direction. You believe in something you can't see...I believe in what we all see.

I am the one here who is operating from the position of reality...

Man, that's funny. What color is the sky in your reality?
You're like Galileo, everyone else is wrong.
Be brave little soldier.

 

[jc456]

Here from Jon Rappaport UN climate change 1000 scientists say no Jon Rappoport s Blog

UN climate change: 1000 scientists say no by Jon Rappoport

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[SSDD]

What's to mention? Energy flows one way....there is no need to state the obvious.

You self evidence is disproven by your inability to post proof of one way flow.

What do I have to prove? You put a hot object next to a cool object and the hot object cools down...the cool object warms up...energy moves from the hot object to the cool object....the hot object doesn't warm up further which would be the case if it were absorbing energy from the cool object.

No measurement has ever been made of an object radiating and absorbing energy from a cooler object at the same time...the longer this goes on, the more stupid you look asking for evidence that energy moves from warm to cool....You, on the other hand have been actively searching and the best you can do to prove two way energy movement is a mathematical model which does nothing but prove that the SB equation is correct when it describes a one way energy transfer from a radiator to its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and it's surroundings.

Hell, even Ian admits that he can't provide any actual observation of two way energy flow...you can't observe in reality the predictions of mathematical models...all we can see is that the second law is right when it states that energy doesn't move from cool objects to warm objects.

 

[SSDD]

I am the one here who is operating from the position of reality...

Really? Then lets see the observed, measured example of a warm object radiating out and at the same time absorbing energy from a cooler object. If you are, in fact, operating from reality, then a real example should be easy....lets see the real example.

Me? I am operating from reality...put a hot object next to a cool object...the cool object warms up...the hot object cools down...if it were absorbing energy, it would warm up....the cool object is warming because it is actually absorbing energy....more energy in equals warming....the hot object doesn't gain any heat at all because it is not gaining any energy. One way energy transfer....Anyone can measure it happening...all you need is a couple of thermometers...hell, even you can do it not that you would believe what you are seeing.

I bet you even think you know what heat is....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am the one here who is operating from the position of reality...

Really? Then lets see the observed, measured example of a warm object radiating out and at the same time absorbing energy from a cooler object. If you are, in fact, operating from reality, then a real example should be easy....lets see the real example.

Me? I am operating from reality...put a hot object next to a cool object...the cool object warms up...the hot object cools down...if it were absorbing energy, it would warm up....the cool object is warming because it is actually absorbing energy....more energy in equals warming....the hot object doesn't gain any heat at all because it is not gaining any energy. One way energy transfer....Anyone can measure it happening...all you need is a couple of thermometers...hell, even you can do it not that you would believe what you are seeing.

I bet you even think you know what heat is....

Then lets see the observed, measured example of a warm object radiating out and at the same time absorbing energy from a cooler object.

Right, because objects stop radiating, in your universe, when a warmer object is nearby.
Or the photons suddenly and magically miss the warmer object.

put a hot object next to a cool object...the cool object warms up...the hot object cools down...if it were absorbing energy, it would warm up

Unless the hot object emits more than it absorbs, in that case (reality) the hot object still cools down.
The cool object still warms up. Because, as we see in the SB law, all objects above 0K emit energy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,....

That is awesome! So post a couple that mention one way flow. Be brave.

Why would anyone taking, and logging measurements feel the need to state what is self evident? What would be noteworthy would be an actual observation and measurement of energy flowing in two directions....Got any of those? Of course you don't because it doesn't happen.

SSDD, Answer me this. Do all molecules emit black body radiation?

 

[Billy_Bob]

All matter/molecules emit black body radiation at all times. its a fact.

You have two molecules one radiating at 400 photons per second and another cooler molecule radiating at 25 photons per second.

BOTH ARE ALWAYS EMITTING. It is a fact of physics. The rate of received / loss is what determines if a molecule will warm or cool.

The warmer molecule is radiating (emitting) at 400 as those photons approach the cooler molecule they over come the photons in their path.

400 --> collides with 25 leaving a thermal imbalance of 375 striking the other molecule. This imbalance is what warms the cooler molecule.

Energy is always flowing in both directions. It is the reaction of collision/redirection which stops flow. So in a way you are correct but not fully because the cooler molecule is indeed emitting towards the hotter.