Heat

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, convection and conduction are 2 different things. This is because they use different processes.
Have you thought about going to school for engineering? It might help. You contradicted yourself.

All that we can be sure of is that the total density of the atmosphere is the only important thing in the insolation factor that forces the Earth to raise to a certain MGT to achieve a balance of energy in to energy out.

This insolation factor is so important that it totally rules everything else.

And yet you said

Also I have yet to see what the hell you're getting at with the idea of heating a gas in a jar and then seeing how long it takes to cool down. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of gas within the bottle.

A contradiction. Whether gases are in the atmosphere or in a jar they will exhibit the same properties. If they can absorb and retain heat in the atmosphere then they will also do the same in a jar. With a jar we can see whether or not the rate of entropy changes.

Tell you what - I worked for 40 years as an engineer. I worked on projects in which I designed the machine that identified HIV and connected it to AIDS. That gained the chemist that used it a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I designed and programmed machines that identified and even treated some types of cancer. I built robotics and artificial intelligence. I even designed and programmed some of the communications boards that are on the International Space Station.

Please tell me what you have done besides played with the other kids in the sandbox.

"rate of entropy changes"??? You haven't a clue what that means do you?

Again, tell us all what you have ever done in your entire life.

Do you know what's funny Wake? You don't even know what you said in your comment that I quoted.

Why haven't you told us what you've done with your life? Where you believe you got any expertise in anything?

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
It is the flow of thermal energy. That is the standard definition. If someone knows that it really means nothing. After all, in our atmosphere of which we can't measure the temperature according to Into The Night and IBDaMann, we simply can't know if the Stefan-Boltzmann constant means anything.
Heat does have various definitions. One definition is based on the volume of gases. This might be because if we have one lone molecule, it will release no heat. But if we have 2 molecules or elements, then one can release heat content while the other absorbs it.
This gets into atomic physics. Chlorine which is Cl on the periodic elemental table is a gas. If "heat" or what is commonly referred to as background electromagnetic energy is passed from one element to the other, then background electromagnetic energy is heat.
But what if we get into plasma physics? That's actually considered the 5th state of matter. That's high energy particle physics. Highly excited ions. Are they heat?
Those would be the 2 most basic forms in which heat could be considered. Maybe Into The Night or IBDaMnann could clarify their comments about what a flow of heat is in specific terms. I know I'd like to understand what they mean.
Instead of them demeaning others maybe they can offer a clear and concise definition of what heat is? Is that too much to ask? We are all over 16, right?
At least I hope we are. For all I know ITN and IBDaMann still live at home with their parents.

IBDaMann, yours or ITN's standard reply is meaningless. The only reason an element or a molecule releases heat is because it interacts with something else.
Even with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, it shows an interaction. Why does a black body have energy to emit? Neither you nor ITN can answer that question.
I think the real question is what you and ITN have against people. From what both of you post it would suggest that you're afraid. You both need someone to lash out at. Why are the 2 of you afraid?
The only reason for my last comment is because when either of you attack someone, it has nothing to do with anything. The 2 of you are simply attacking someone who posted something.

More accurately it isn't "the flow" of energy but the amount of energy per cubic unit of matter.

James, you are doing things like Nightmare who somehow trips across a term and thinks that is the answer to God, the Universe and Everything.

Wake wrote:
You have to take a far more wider view.

Wake wrote:
There is NOTHING simple about the universe.

Wake wrote:
I don't even believe that they recently took a "picture" of a black hole. At its distance using telescopes on opposite sides of the earth I do not believe that to be a wide enough base to be a real picture. This could just as well be light from a more distant star being bent into that "donut" shape from the gravity field of an intervening star. I would expect them to need a simultaneous picture from opposite sides of the Earth's orbit.

Wake wrote:
Like your measuring of "entropy" with your bottle of CO2 experiment that was nothing of the sort. You seem bright enough to learn but not if you're not bright enough to actually want to learn.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
It is the flow of thermal energy. That is the standard definition. If someone knows that it really means nothing. After all, in our atmosphere of which we can't measure the temperature according to Into The Night and IBDaMann, we simply can't know if the Stefan-Boltzmann constant means anything.
Heat does have various definitions. One definition is based on the volume of gases. This might be because if we have one lone molecule, it will release no heat. But if we have 2 molecules or elements, then one can release heat content while the other absorbs it.
This gets into atomic physics. Chlorine which is Cl on the periodic elemental table is a gas. If "heat" or what is commonly referred to as background electromagnetic energy is passed from one element to the other, then background electromagnetic energy is heat.
But what if we get into plasma physics? That's actually considered the 5th state of matter. That's high energy particle physics. Highly excited ions. Are they heat?
Those would be the 2 most basic forms in which heat could be considered. Maybe Into The Night or IBDaMnann could clarify their comments about what a flow of heat is in specific terms. I know I'd like to understand what they mean.
Instead of them demeaning others maybe they can offer a clear and concise definition of what heat is? Is that too much to ask? We are all over 16, right?
At least I hope we are. For all I know ITN and IBDaMann still live at home with their parents.

IBDaMann, yours or ITN's standard reply is meaningless. The only reason an element or a molecule releases heat is because it interacts with something else.
Even with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, it shows an interaction. Why does a black body have energy to emit? Neither you nor ITN can answer that question.
I think the real question is what you and ITN have against people. From what both of you post it would suggest that you're afraid. You both need someone to lash out at. Why are the 2 of you afraid?
The only reason for my last comment is because when either of you attack someone, it has nothing to do with anything. The 2 of you are simply attacking someone who posted something.

More accurately it isn't "the flow" of energy but the amount of energy per cubic unit of matter.

James, you are doing things like Nightmare who somehow trips across a term and thinks that is the answer to God, the Universe and Everything. You have to take a far more wider view. There is NOTHING simple about the universe. I don't even believe that they recently took a "picture" of a black hole. At its distance using telescopes on opposite sides of the earth I do not believe that to be a wide enough base to be a real picture. This could just as well be light from a more distant star being bent into that "donut" shape from the gravity field of an intervening star. I would expect them to need a simultaneous picture from opposite sides of the Earth's orbit.

Like your measuring of "entropy" with your bottle of CO2 experiment that was nothing of the sort. You seem bright enough to learn but not if you're not bright enough to actually want to learn.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
It is the flow of thermal energy. That is the standard definition. If someone knows that it really means nothing. After all, in our atmosphere of which we can't measure the temperature according to Into The Night and IBDaMann, we simply can't know if the Stefan-Boltzmann constant means anything.
Heat does have various definitions. One definition is based on the volume of gases. This might be because if we have one lone molecule, it will release no heat. But if we have 2 molecules or elements, then one can release heat content while the other absorbs it.
This gets into atomic physics. Chlorine which is Cl on the periodic elemental table is a gas. If "heat" or what is commonly referred to as background electromagnetic energy is passed from one element to the other, then background electromagnetic energy is heat.
But what if we get into plasma physics? That's actually considered the 5th state of matter. That's high energy particle physics. Highly excited ions. Are they heat?
Those would be the 2 most basic forms in which heat could be considered. Maybe Into The Night or IBDaMnann could clarify their comments about what a flow of heat is in specific terms. I know I'd like to understand what they mean.
Instead of them demeaning others maybe they can offer a clear and concise definition of what heat is? Is that too much to ask? We are all over 16, right?
At least I hope we are. For all I know ITN and IBDaMann still live at home with their parents.

IBDaMann, yours or ITN's standard reply is meaningless. The only reason an element or a molecule releases heat is because it interacts with something else.
Even with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, it shows an interaction. Why does a black body have energy to emit? Neither you nor ITN can answer that question.
I think the real question is what you and ITN have against people. From what both of you post it would suggest that you're afraid. You both need someone to lash out at. Why are the 2 of you afraid?
The only reason for my last comment is because when either of you attack someone, it has nothing to do with anything. The 2 of you are simply attacking someone who posted something.

More accurately it isn't "the flow" of energy but the amount of energy per cubic unit of matter.

James, you are doing things like Nightmare who somehow trips across a term and thinks that is the answer to God, the Universe and Everything. You have to take a far more wider view. There is NOTHING simple about the universe. I don't even believe that they recently took a "picture" of a black hole. At its distance using telescopes on opposite sides of the earth I do not believe that to be a wide enough base to be a real picture. This could just as well be light from a more distant star being bent into that "donut" shape from the gravity field of an intervening star. I would expect them to need a simultaneous picture from opposite sides of the Earth's orbit.

Like your measuring of "entropy" with your bottle of CO2 experiment that was nothing of the sort. You seem bright enough to learn but not if you're not bright enough to actually want to learn.

Wake, you should try listening to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXHw_XB486k and meditating while you do. Then you might hear the Great Spirit. But since the only thing that "is" is what can be physically observed, that leaves the coffee in my cup and the cake on my plate. Those things are real.

James___ wrote:
What you miss on is that convection and conduction are the same thing until you consider application. When application is considered then they are 2 different things.

James___ wrote:
With temperature and heat,

James___ wrote:
one definition is that a gaseous molecule will have temperature in accordance with KE = 3/2kT. And when you have a volume of molecules, ie., more than one then you have heat because their temperature will be an average between the 2 of them. But "heat" will flow between them so one will always have a higher temperature than the other.

James___ wrote:
This is very basic stuff.

James___ wrote:
This is why you don't understand my experiment.

James___ wrote:
I did suggest to a reporter for The Gaurdian to consider asking why scientists haven't done something to demonstrate their claims.

James___ wrote:
At the moment a debate favours them because it's not about being right but merely presenting the best argument for something.

James___ wrote:
For as much as me and isn't disagree with things, there are some things that we do agree on. I won't bother to mention mismanagement of natural resources or ground water depletion. I mean those might be the main reasons why California has such severe wildfires but that's not what people want to hear. You won't hear me talking about those things not one bit, nope not me.

James___ wrote:
BTW, I am listening to Vesislava at the moment. She's Bulgarian but is currently working in Doha. She earns her living with her cello.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote: "rate of entropy changes"??? You haven't a clue what that means do you?

No, he doesn't. Then, neither do you.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote: "rate of entropy changes"??? You haven't a clue what that means do you?

No, he doesn't. Then, neither do you.

I have to admit, I laughed when I read James__ using that term.

By the way, for the record, the "rate of entropy changes" is the first derivative of the function for the absolute quantity of unusable energy at time t

Now we all know. You're welcome.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
It is the flow of thermal energy. That is the standard definition. If someone knows that it really means nothing. After all, in our atmosphere of which we can't measure the temperature according to Into The Night and IBDaMann, we simply can't know if the Stefan-Boltzmann constant means anything.
Heat does have various definitions. One definition is based on the volume of gases. This might be because if we have one lone molecule, it will release no heat. But if we have 2 molecules or elements, then one can release heat content while the other absorbs it.
This gets into atomic physics. Chlorine which is Cl on the periodic elemental table is a gas. If "heat" or what is commonly referred to as background electromagnetic energy is passed from one element to the other, then background electromagnetic energy is heat.
But what if we get into plasma physics? That's actually considered the 5th state of matter. That's high energy particle physics. Highly excited ions. Are they heat?
Those would be the 2 most basic forms in which heat could be considered. Maybe Into The Night or IBDaMnann could clarify their comments about what a flow of heat is in specific terms. I know I'd like to understand what they mean.
Instead of them demeaning others maybe they can offer a clear and concise definition of what heat is? Is that too much to ask? We are all over 16, right?
At least I hope we are. For all I know ITN and IBDaMann still live at home with their parents.

IBDaMann, yours or ITN's standard reply is meaningless. The only reason an element or a molecule releases heat is because it interacts with something else.
Even with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, it shows an interaction. Why does a black body have energy to emit? Neither you nor ITN can answer that question.
I think the real question is what you and ITN have against people. From what both of you post it would suggest that you're afraid. You both need someone to lash out at. Why are the 2 of you afraid?
The only reason for my last comment is because when either of you attack someone, it has nothing to do with anything. The 2 of you are simply attacking someone who posted something.

More accurately it isn't "the flow" of energy but the amount of energy per cubic unit of matter.

James, you are doing things like Nightmare who somehow trips across a term and thinks that is the answer to God, the Universe and Everything. You have to take a far more wider view. There is NOTHING simple about the universe. I don't even believe that they recently took a "picture" of a black hole. At its distance using telescopes on opposite sides of the earth I do not believe that to be a wide enough base to be a real picture. This could just as well be light from a more distant star being bent into that "donut" shape from the gravity field of an intervening star. I would expect them to need a simultaneous picture from opposite sides of the Earth's orbit.

Like your measuring of "entropy" with your bottle of CO2 experiment that was nothing of the sort. You seem bright enough to learn but not if you're not bright enough to actually want to learn.

Wake, you should try listening to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXHw_XB486k and meditating while you do. Then you might hear the Great Spirit. But since the only thing that "is" is what can be physically observed, that leaves the coffee in my cup and the cake on my plate. Those things are real.
What you miss on is that convection and conduction are the same thing until you consider application. When application is considered then they are 2 different things.
With temperature and heat, one definition is that a gaseous molecule will have temperature in accordance with KE = 3/2kT. And when you have a volume of molecules, ie., more than one then you have heat because their temperature will be an average between the 2 of them. But "heat" will flow between them so one will always have a higher temperature than the other.
This is very basic stuff. This is why you don't understand my experiment. I did suggest to a reporter for The Gaurdian to consider asking why scientists haven't done something to demonstrate their claims. At the moment a debate favours them because it's not about being right but merely presenting the best argument for something.
For as much as me and isn't disagree with things, there are some things that we do agree on. I won't bother to mention mismanagement of natural resources or ground water depletion. I mean those might be the main reasons why California has such severe wildfires but that's not what people want to hear. You won't hear me talking about those things not one bit, nope not me.
BTW, I am listening to Vesislava at the moment. She's Bulgarian but is currently working in Doha. She earns her living with her cello.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
It is the flow of thermal energy. That is the standard definition. If someone knows that it really means nothing. After all, in our atmosphere of which we can't measure the temperature according to Into The Night and IBDaMann, we simply can't know if the Stefan-Boltzmann constant means anything.
Heat does have various definitions. One definition is based on the volume of gases. This might be because if we have one lone molecule, it will release no heat. But if we have 2 molecules or elements, then one can release heat content while the other absorbs it.
This gets into atomic physics. Chlorine which is Cl on the periodic elemental table is a gas. If "heat" or what is commonly referred to as background electromagnetic energy is passed from one element to the other, then background electromagnetic energy is heat.
But what if we get into plasma physics? That's actually considered the 5th state of matter. That's high energy particle physics. Highly excited ions. Are they heat?
Those would be the 2 most basic forms in which heat could be considered. Maybe Into The Night or IBDaMnann could clarify their comments about what a flow of heat is in specific terms. I know I'd like to understand what they mean.
Instead of them demeaning others maybe they can offer a clear and concise definition of what heat is? Is that too much to ask? We are all over 16, right?
At least I hope we are. For all I know ITN and IBDaMann still live at home with their parents.

IBDaMann, yours or ITN's standard reply is meaningless. The only reason an element or a molecule releases heat is because it interacts with something else.
Even with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, it shows an interaction. Why does a black body have energy to emit? Neither you nor ITN can answer that question.
I think the real question is what you and ITN have against people. From what both of you post it would suggest that you're afraid. You both need someone to lash out at. Why are the 2 of you afraid?
The only reason for my last comment is because when either of you attack someone, it has nothing to do with anything. The 2 of you are simply attacking someone who posted something.

More accurately it isn't "the flow" of energy but the amount of energy per cubic unit of matter.

James, you are doing things like Nightmare who somehow trips across a term and thinks that is the answer to God, the Universe and Everything. You have to take a far more wider view. There is NOTHING simple about the universe. I don't even believe that they recently took a "picture" of a black hole. At its distance using telescopes on opposite sides of the earth I do not believe that to be a wide enough base to be a real picture. This could just as well be light from a more distant star being bent into that "donut" shape from the gravity field of an intervening star. I would expect them to need a simultaneous picture from opposite sides of the Earth's orbit.

Like your measuring of "entropy" with your bottle of CO2 experiment that was nothing of the sort. You seem bright enough to learn but not if you're not bright enough to actually want to learn.

Wake, you should try listening to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXHw_XB486k and meditating while you do. Then you might hear the Great Spirit. But since the only thing that "is" is what can be physically observed, that leaves the coffee in my cup and the cake on my plate. Those things are real.
What you miss on is that convection and conduction are the same thing until you consider application. When application is considered then they are 2 different things.
With temperature and heat, one definition is that a gaseous molecule will have temperature in accordance with KE = 3/2kT. And when you have a volume of molecules, ie., more than one then you have heat because their temperature will be an average between the 2 of them. But "heat" will flow between them so one will always have a higher temperature than the other.
This is very basic stuff. This is why you don't understand my experiment. I did suggest to a reporter for The Gaurdian to consider asking why scientists haven't done something to demonstrate their claims. At the moment a debate favours them because it's not about being right but merely presenting the best argument for something.
For as much as me and isn't disagree with things, there are some things that we do agree on. I won't bother to mention mismanagement of natural resources or ground water depletion. I mean those might be the main reasons why California has such severe wildfires but that's not what people want to hear. You won't hear me talking about those things not one bit, nope not me.
BTW, I am listening to Vesislava at the moment. She's Bulgarian but is currently working in Doha. She earns her living with her cello.

James, do you think that you are somehow clever to use a quantum mechanical definition when that is perfectly useless? We've already had you talking BS about specific heat and so you don't know what the heat variations are between molecules. So YOU and WE ALL have to measure heat in the good old fashion way - with a thermometer or spectroscopically.

Wake wrote:
Again, your "experiment" of using a flask of gas and heating it and measuring the different speed of cooling offer not at all what you think it does. And it certainly bears not the slightest connection to reality.

James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

Into the Night wrote:

It is cool at night. CO2 influences nothing.

James___ wrote:
Okay, okay, for fun I'll go along with Wake's quantum physics. We can have some fun with this, right guys?
With spectroscopic analysis light emission can be observed such as with a prism. Different gases will emit different wavelengths at different amplitudes. Simple I know.

James___ wrote:
And with an increase in CO2 levels, what happens to the emitted wavelengths of light? e = hf, right? That's what spectroscopy is about. It observes specific wavelengths and amplitude of emissions. This could conceivably make everything about angstroms which would give a very precise amount of emissions.

James___ wrote:
This is where a flask/jar, etc. would matter.
How does silica, ie., glass effect the wavelength of emitted electromagnetic radiation?

James___ wrote:
How does it's wavelength to mass ratio change?

James___ wrote:
This is what would make entropy known just to keep things simple.

James___ wrote:
Wavelength is usually associated with amplitude such as in AM radio.

James___ wrote:
That's analogue whereas FM varies the frequency.

James___ wrote:
I know ya'all get this.

James___ wrote:
And this is what Wake didn't understand.

James___ wrote:
Glass or silica can act as a prism and the amount of energy passing through it will change the wavelength, colour, etc. of the light.

James___ wrote:
And this in turn demonstrates a change in entropy.

James___ wrote:
Take some time to read the science behind this.

James___ wrote:
I think it's pretty basic.

James___ wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong and it's more advanced than what I think it is.

James___ wrote:
Still, if anyone has a problem with commonly accepted definitions in science, that's on them.

James___ wrote:
If anyone missed it, spectroscopic analysis would allow for the emission from a container to be observed in a ridiculously small amount of energy. That should be enough to take the debate out of climate change.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
By the way, for the record, the "rate of entropy changes" is the first derivative of the function for the absolute quantity of unusable energy at time t

This is sad. Like you said, all you and isn't have are words and definitions. Sad.

James___ wrote: How does it's wavelength to mass ratio change? This is what would make entropy known just to keep things simple.

James___ wrote: Heat can be transferred 3 different ways, conduction, convection and radiation.

James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

You get very tiresome. A "jar" is for holding food and generally has a wide neck but not necessarily. A "flask" is a GLASS laboratory sample holder that usually but not necessarily have a narrow neck.

Perhaps you can explain to us why you would rather use a food container that BTW could be made of crockery rather than a laboratory container?

Why do you feel the need to displace gross ignorance at every turn?

Time for you to jump up and down and tell us that we don't know physics while you so obviously are reading a 7th grade physics textbook and with each lesson saving the entire world.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

You get very tiresome. A "jar" is for holding food and generally has a wide neck but not necessarily. A "flask" is a GLASS laboratory sample holder that usually but not necessarily have a narrow neck.

Perhaps you can explain to us why you would rather use a food container that BTW could be made of crockery rather than a laboratory container?

Why do you feel the need to displace gross ignorance at every turn?

Time for you to jump up and down and tell us that we don't know physics while you so obviously are reading a 7th grade physics textbook and with each lesson saving the entire world.

I wish you guys could do better. It's disappointing when all it comes back to is word games. You guys ignore application. The difference as we've already discussed between convection and radiation is in the application of energy (heat) transfer.
An hvac/heat pump unit outside of someone's home comes to mind. The air being moved into their home heats or cools because of convection. A mixing of gases. With conduction, there is no mixing happening. The transfer of energy (heat) is between 2 things that will not mix. Application.
With a physics experiment, how energy (heat) is emitted from a volume of gases depends on what that individual wants. A scientist could use what's available to them or if they want, they could purchase new equipment for such an experiment. For people to define the parameters of an experiment that they are not doing is placing their conditions on other people.
I kind of wish you guys understood what you're saying.
With NotDaMann, it's not really about entropy. If CO2 allows for heat to be trapped then if container "A" has 400 ppm of CO2 and container "B" has 600 ppm, exposing both to the same amount of joules/watts should show a significant increase in temperature of container "B". This is because it would trap more heat.
With Wake, a scientist could shield the inside of a container with reflective material. Then said scientist could allow for a controlled discharge of heat depending on how they wish to observe the emissions from the container.
They could use a magnifying glass concept for all that mattered to focus the emissions. Or if they wanted, they could use an actual prism and then use the different wavelengths to quantify the emissions from that container.
This last one would mean that they're basically converting electromagnetic radiation into different colours of light. At the same time they could monitor the vibrations in a crystal. This has been done when searching for gravity waves. In that type of testing, that's possibly the most sensitive and thus accurate method for determining the resistance of any given field.
I kind of doubt you guys have read about that or how scientists try to understand how neutrinos work. There are some and I'm kind of in the camp that neutrinos are dark matter. It's just that when neutrinos are observed, from their perspective it's a planet or the Moon that we're seeing.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

You get very tiresome. A "jar" is for holding food and generally has a wide neck but not necessarily. A "flask" is a GLASS laboratory sample holder that usually but not necessarily have a narrow neck.

Perhaps you can explain to us why you would rather use a food container that BTW could be made of crockery rather than a laboratory container?

Why do you feel the need to displace gross ignorance at every turn?

Time for you to jump up and down and tell us that we don't know physics while you so obviously are reading a 7th grade physics textbook and with each lesson saving the entire world.

I wish you guys could do better. It's disappointing when all it comes back to is word games. You guys ignore application. The difference as we've already discussed between convection and radiation is in the application of energy (heat) transfer.
An hvac/heat pump unit outside of someone's home comes to mind. The air being moved into their home heats or cools because of convection. A mixing of gases. With conduction, there is no mixing happening. The transfer of energy (heat) is between 2 things that will not mix. Application.
With a physics experiment, how energy (heat) is emitted from a volume of gases depends on what that individual wants. A scientist could use what's available to them or if they want, they could purchase new equipment for such an experiment. For people to define the parameters of an experiment that they are not doing is placing their conditions on other people.
I kind of wish you guys understood what you're saying.
With NotDaMann, it's not really about entropy. If CO2 allows for heat to be trapped then if container "A" has 400 ppm of CO2 and container "B" has 600 ppm, exposing both to the same amount of joules/watts should show a significant increase in temperature of container "B". This is because it would trap more heat.
With Wake, a scientist could shield the inside of a container with reflective material. Then said scientist could allow for a controlled discharge of heat depending on how they wish to observe the emissions from the container.
They could use a magnifying glass concept for all that mattered to focus the emissions. Or if they wanted, they could use an actual prism and then use the different wavelengths to quantify the emissions from that container.
This last one would mean that they're basically converting electromagnetic radiation into different colours of light. At the same time they could monitor the vibrations in a crystal. This has been done when searching for gravity waves. In that type of testing, that's possibly the most sensitive and thus accurate method for determining the resistance of any given field.
I kind of doubt you guys have read about that or how scientists try to understand how neutrinos work. There are some and I'm kind of in the camp that neutrinos are dark matter. It's just that when neutrinos are observed, from their perspective it's a planet or the Moon that we're seeing.

Let me see now - you're asking ME why I changed from jar to flask and I'm the one playing word games? And then you go through this supreme ignorance about what you would prove by your mental experiment - which is NOTHING.

And now we are being TOLD BY YOU that you have read about neutrinos. Hey stupid - I actually worked on accelerators. What in God's name have you ever done in your entire life except play these sorts of games?

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

You get very tiresome. A "jar" is for holding food and generally has a wide neck but not necessarily. A "flask" is a GLASS laboratory sample holder that usually but not necessarily have a narrow neck.

Perhaps you can explain to us why you would rather use a food container that BTW could be made of crockery rather than a laboratory container?

Why do you feel the need to displace gross ignorance at every turn?

Time for you to jump up and down and tell us that we don't know physics while you so obviously are reading a 7th grade physics textbook and with each lesson saving the entire world.

I wish you guys could do better. It's disappointing when all it comes back to is word games. You guys ignore application. The difference as we've already discussed between convection and radiation is in the application of energy (heat) transfer.
An hvac/heat pump unit outside of someone's home comes to mind. The air being moved into their home heats or cools because of convection. A mixing of gases. With conduction, there is no mixing happening. The transfer of energy (heat) is between 2 things that will not mix. Application.
With a physics experiment, how energy (heat) is emitted from a volume of gases depends on what that individual wants. A scientist could use what's available to them or if they want, they could purchase new equipment for such an experiment. For people to define the parameters of an experiment that they are not doing is placing their conditions on other people.
I kind of wish you guys understood what you're saying.
With NotDaMann, it's not really about entropy. If CO2 allows for heat to be trapped then if container "A" has 400 ppm of CO2 and container "B" has 600 ppm, exposing both to the same amount of joules/watts should show a significant increase in temperature of container "B". This is because it would trap more heat.
With Wake, a scientist could shield the inside of a container with reflective material. Then said scientist could allow for a controlled discharge of heat depending on how they wish to observe the emissions from the container.
They could use a magnifying glass concept for all that mattered to focus the emissions. Or if they wanted, they could use an actual prism and then use the different wavelengths to quantify the emissions from that container.
This last one would mean that they're basically converting electromagnetic radiation into different colours of light. At the same time they could monitor the vibrations in a crystal. This has been done when searching for gravity waves. In that type of testing, that's possibly the most sensitive and thus accurate method for determining the resistance of any given field.
I kind of doubt you guys have read about that or how scientists try to understand how neutrinos work. There are some and I'm kind of in the camp that neutrinos are dark matter. It's just that when neutrinos are observed, from their perspective it's a planet or the Moon that we're seeing.

Let me see now - you're asking ME why I changed from jar to flask and I'm the one playing word games? And then you go through this supreme ignorance about what you would prove by your mental experiment - which is NOTHING.

And now we are being TOLD BY YOU that you have read about neutrinos. Hey stupid - I actually worked on accelerators. What in God's name have you ever done in your entire life except play these sorts of games?

You sound like ITN and IBDaMann. I don't care to be ya'alls friend. What you don't understand is that I have things that I am pursuing on my own. At the moment what other people think doesn't matter because I am doing the work and not them.
Even with what you said, it's doubtful that you guys are well versed in physics.
It's interesting that you would compare my experiment to Schroedinger's Cat when in reality Maxwell's Demon might be closer to the truth.

Wake wrote:


Don't hand out any more of your stupid shit. What have you done? What jobs have you held?

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:


Don't hand out any more of your stupid shit. What have you done? What jobs have you held?

If you guys aren't familiar with physics, that's on you. With me, my main concern is something that just doesn't matter to you guys. That's something for me to understand.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

You get very tiresome. A "jar" is for holding food and generally has a wide neck but not necessarily. A "flask" is a GLASS laboratory sample holder that usually but not necessarily have a narrow neck.

Wake wrote:
Perhaps you can explain to us why you would rather use a food container that BTW could be made of crockery rather than a laboratory container?

Wake wrote:
Why do you feel the need to displace gross ignorance at every turn?

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

You get very tiresome. A "jar" is for holding food and generally has a wide neck but not necessarily. A "flask" is a GLASS laboratory sample holder that usually but not necessarily have a narrow neck.

Perhaps you can explain to us why you would rather use a food container that BTW could be made of crockery rather than a laboratory container?

Why do you feel the need to displace gross ignorance at every turn?

Time for you to jump up and down and tell us that we don't know physics while you so obviously are reading a 7th grade physics textbook and with each lesson saving the entire world.

I wish you guys could do better. It's disappointing when all it comes back to is word games.

James___ wrote:
You guys ignore application. The difference as we've already discussed between convection and radiation is in the application of energy (heat) transfer.

James___ wrote:
An hvac/heat pump unit outside of someone's home comes to mind. The air being moved into their home heats or cools because of convection.

James___ wrote:
A mixing of gases.

James___ wrote:
With conduction, there is no mixing happening.

James___ wrote:
The transfer of energy (heat) is between 2 things that will not mix.

James___ wrote:
Application.

James___ wrote:
With a physics experiment, how energy (heat)

James___ wrote:
is emitted from a volume of gases depends on what that individual wants.

James___ wrote:
A scientist could use what's available to them or if they want, they could purchase new equipment for such an experiment.

James___ wrote:
For people to define the parameters of an experiment that they are not doing is placing their conditions on other people.

James___ wrote:
I kind of wish you guys understood what you're saying.

James___ wrote:
With NotDaMann, it's not really about entropy.

James___ wrote:
If CO2 allows for heat to be trapped

James___ wrote:
then if container "A" has 400 ppm of CO2 and container "B" has 600 ppm, exposing both to the same amount of joules/watts should show a significant increase in temperature of container "B". This is because it would trap more heat.

James___ wrote:
With Wake, a scientist could shield the inside of a container with reflective material.

James___ wrote:
Then said scientist could allow for a controlled discharge of heat depending on how they wish to observe the emissions from the container.

James___ wrote:
They could use a magnifying glass concept for all that mattered to focus the emissions. Or if they wanted, they could use an actual prism and then use the different wavelengths to quantify the emissions from that container.

James___ wrote:
This last one would mean that they're basically converting electromagnetic radiation into different colours of light.

James___ wrote:
At the same time they could monitor the vibrations in a crystal.

James___ wrote:
This has been done when searching for gravity waves.

James___ wrote:
In that type of testing, that's possibly the most sensitive and thus accurate method for determining the resistance of any given field.

James___ wrote:
I kind of doubt you guys have read about that or how scientists try to understand how neutrinos work.

James___ wrote:
There are some and I'm kind of in the camp that neutrinos are dark matter.

James___ wrote:
It's just that when neutrinos are observed, from their perspective it's a planet or the Moon that we're seeing.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

You get very tiresome. A "jar" is for holding food and generally has a wide neck but not necessarily. A "flask" is a GLASS laboratory sample holder that usually but not necessarily have a narrow neck.

Perhaps you can explain to us why you would rather use a food container that BTW could be made of crockery rather than a laboratory container?

Why do you feel the need to displace gross ignorance at every turn?

Time for you to jump up and down and tell us that we don't know physics while you so obviously are reading a 7th grade physics textbook and with each lesson saving the entire world.

I wish you guys could do better. It's disappointing when all it comes back to is word games. You guys ignore application. The difference as we've already discussed between convection and radiation is in the application of energy (heat) transfer.
An hvac/heat pump unit outside of someone's home comes to mind. The air being moved into their home heats or cools because of convection. A mixing of gases. With conduction, there is no mixing happening. The transfer of energy (heat) is between 2 things that will not mix. Application.
With a physics experiment, how energy (heat) is emitted from a volume of gases depends on what that individual wants. A scientist could use what's available to them or if they want, they could purchase new equipment for such an experiment. For people to define the parameters of an experiment that they are not doing is placing their conditions on other people.
I kind of wish you guys understood what you're saying.
With NotDaMann, it's not really about entropy. If CO2 allows for heat to be trapped then if container "A" has 400 ppm of CO2 and container "B" has 600 ppm, exposing both to the same amount of joules/watts should show a significant increase in temperature of container "B". This is because it would trap more heat.
With Wake, a scientist could shield the inside of a container with reflective material. Then said scientist could allow for a controlled discharge of heat depending on how they wish to observe the emissions from the container.
They could use a magnifying glass concept for all that mattered to focus the emissions. Or if they wanted, they could use an actual prism and then use the different wavelengths to quantify the emissions from that container.
This last one would mean that they're basically converting electromagnetic radiation into different colours of light. At the same time they could monitor the vibrations in a crystal. This has been done when searching for gravity waves. In that type of testing, that's possibly the most sensitive and thus accurate method for determining the resistance of any given field.
I kind of doubt you guys have read about that or how scientists try to understand how neutrinos work. There are some and I'm kind of in the camp that neutrinos are dark matter. It's just that when neutrinos are observed, from their perspective it's a planet or the Moon that we're seeing.

Let me see now - you're asking ME why I changed from jar to flask and I'm the one playing word games? And then you go through this supreme ignorance about what you would prove by your mental experiment - which is NOTHING.

And now we are being TOLD BY YOU that you have read about neutrinos. Hey stupid - I actually worked on accelerators. What in God's name have you ever done in your entire life except play these sorts of games?

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

You get very tiresome. A "jar" is for holding food and generally has a wide neck but not necessarily. A "flask" is a GLASS laboratory sample holder that usually but not necessarily have a narrow neck.

Perhaps you can explain to us why you would rather use a food container that BTW could be made of crockery rather than a laboratory container?

Why do you feel the need to displace gross ignorance at every turn?

Time for you to jump up and down and tell us that we don't know physics while you so obviously are reading a 7th grade physics textbook and with each lesson saving the entire world.

I wish you guys could do better. It's disappointing when all it comes back to is word games. You guys ignore application. The difference as we've already discussed between convection and radiation is in the application of energy (heat) transfer.
An hvac/heat pump unit outside of someone's home comes to mind. The air being moved into their home heats or cools because of convection. A mixing of gases. With conduction, there is no mixing happening. The transfer of energy (heat) is between 2 things that will not mix. Application.
With a physics experiment, how energy (heat) is emitted from a volume of gases depends on what that individual wants. A scientist could use what's available to them or if they want, they could purchase new equipment for such an experiment. For people to define the parameters of an experiment that they are not doing is placing their conditions on other people.
I kind of wish you guys understood what you're saying.
With NotDaMann, it's not really about entropy. If CO2 allows for heat to be trapped then if container "A" has 400 ppm of CO2 and container "B" has 600 ppm, exposing both to the same amount of joules/watts should show a significant increase in temperature of container "B". This is because it would trap more heat.
With Wake, a scientist could shield the inside of a container with reflective material. Then said scientist could allow for a controlled discharge of heat depending on how they wish to observe the emissions from the container.
They could use a magnifying glass concept for all that mattered to focus the emissions. Or if they wanted, they could use an actual prism and then use the different wavelengths to quantify the emissions from that container.
This last one would mean that they're basically converting electromagnetic radiation into different colours of light. At the same time they could monitor the vibrations in a crystal. This has been done when searching for gravity waves. In that type of testing, that's possibly the most sensitive and thus accurate method for determining the resistance of any given field.
I kind of doubt you guys have read about that or how scientists try to understand how neutrinos work. There are some and I'm kind of in the camp that neutrinos are dark matter. It's just that when neutrinos are observed, from their perspective it's a planet or the Moon that we're seeing.

Let me see now - you're asking ME why I changed from jar to flask and I'm the one playing word games? And then you go through this supreme ignorance about what you would prove by your mental experiment - which is NOTHING.

And now we are being TOLD BY YOU that you have read about neutrinos. Hey stupid - I actually worked on accelerators. What in God's name have you ever done in your entire life except play these sorts of games?

You sound like ITN and IBDaMann.

James___ wrote:
I don't care to be ya'alls friend.

James___ wrote:
What you don't understand is that I have things that I am pursuing on my own.

James___ wrote:
At the moment what other people think doesn't matter because I am doing the work and not them.

James___ wrote:
Even with what you said, it's doubtful that you guys are well versed in physics.

James___ wrote:
It's interesting that you would compare my experiment to Schroedinger's Cat when in reality Maxwell's Demon might be closer to the truth.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:


Don't hand out any more of your stupid shit. What have you done? What jobs have you held?

If you guys aren't familiar with physics, that's on you. With me, my main concern is something that just doesn't matter to you guys. That's something for me to understand.

In other words you're in high school and have never done anything. Thanks for all the fish.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

You get very tiresome. A "jar" is for holding food and generally has a wide neck but not necessarily. A "flask" is a GLASS laboratory sample holder that usually but not necessarily have a narrow neck.

Perhaps you can explain to us why you would rather use a food container that BTW could be made of crockery rather than a laboratory container?

Why do you feel the need to displace gross ignorance at every turn?

Time for you to jump up and down and tell us that we don't know physics while you so obviously are reading a 7th grade physics textbook and with each lesson saving the entire world.

I wish you guys could do better. It's disappointing when all it comes back to is word games. You guys ignore application. The difference as we've already discussed between convection and radiation is in the application of energy (heat) transfer.
An hvac/heat pump unit outside of someone's home comes to mind. The air being moved into their home heats or cools because of convection. A mixing of gases. With conduction, there is no mixing happening. The transfer of energy (heat) is between 2 things that will not mix. Application.
With a physics experiment, how energy (heat) is emitted from a volume of gases depends on what that individual wants. A scientist could use what's available to them or if they want, they could purchase new equipment for such an experiment. For people to define the parameters of an experiment that they are not doing is placing their conditions on other people.
I kind of wish you guys understood what you're saying.
With NotDaMann, it's not really about entropy. If CO2 allows for heat to be trapped then if container "A" has 400 ppm of CO2 and container "B" has 600 ppm, exposing both to the same amount of joules/watts should show a significant increase in temperature of container "B". This is because it would trap more heat.
With Wake, a scientist could shield the inside of a container with reflective material. Then said scientist could allow for a controlled discharge of heat depending on how they wish to observe the emissions from the container.
They could use a magnifying glass concept for all that mattered to focus the emissions. Or if they wanted, they could use an actual prism and then use the different wavelengths to quantify the emissions from that container.
This last one would mean that they're basically converting electromagnetic radiation into different colours of light. At the same time they could monitor the vibrations in a crystal. This has been done when searching for gravity waves. In that type of testing, that's possibly the most sensitive and thus accurate method for determining the resistance of any given field.
I kind of doubt you guys have read about that or how scientists try to understand how neutrinos work. There are some and I'm kind of in the camp that neutrinos are dark matter. It's just that when neutrinos are observed, from their perspective it's a planet or the Moon that we're seeing.

Let me see now - you're asking ME why I changed from jar to flask and I'm the one playing word games? And then you go through this supreme ignorance about what you would prove by your mental experiment - which is NOTHING.

And now we are being TOLD BY YOU that you have read about neutrinos. Hey stupid - I actually worked on accelerators. What in God's name have you ever done in your entire life except play these sorts of games?

You sound like ITN and IBDaMann. I don't care to be ya'alls friend. What you don't understand is that I have things that I am pursuing on my own. At the moment what other people think doesn't matter because I am doing the work and not them.
Even with what you said, it's doubtful that you guys are well versed in physics.
It's interesting that you would compare my experiment to Schroedinger's Cat when in reality Maxwell's Demon might be closer to the truth.

Don't hand out any more of your stupid shit.

Wake wrote:
What have you done? What jobs have you held?

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:


Don't hand out any more of your stupid shit. What have you done? What jobs have you held?

If you guys aren't familiar with physics, that's on you. With me, my main concern is something that just doesn't matter to you guys. That's something for me to understand.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:


Don't hand out any more of your stupid shit. What have you done? What jobs have you held?

If you guys aren't familiar with physics, that's on you. With me, my main concern is something that just doesn't matter to you guys. That's something for me to understand.

In other words you're in high school and have never done anything. Thanks for all the fish.

Wake,
I'm going to give you and ITN a do over. You guys can do better. I know you guys have it in you to do better. I believe in you. You can do this.
I mean really, https://www.iter.org/ and https://home.cern/ are on a collision course! How can we keep this catastrophe from happening?

Into the Night wrote:

What sort of collision to you envision? These guys don't even drive in the same country.