Earth surface temperature measurements

tmiddles wrote:For knowing that Venus is hotter than Mercury it's not.

VernerHornung wrote:
There are questions regarding how much of global warming is caused by nature...But there's no doubt it's real...

GasGuzzler wrote:
It is still an unknown value, otherwise known as speculation.

GasGuzzler wrote:
We don't know if the temp is rising. Remember, we only have a fair idea of the global mean temp?

GasGuzzler wrote:
What's real is that there is no way to heat a warmer surface with a cooler gas.

Into the Night wrote:
That requires absolute measurements.

Into the Night wrote:
No, that's called a base rate fallacy, and is a math error as well as a logic error, stemming from a false equivalence.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't use cooked data in statistical math.

Into the Night wrote:
Selection MUST be by randN, and the RAW data MUST be available for inspection.

Into the Night wrote:
Further, statistics is not capable of prediction.

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures, which are absolutely necessary to describe a trend of any kind.

Into the Night wrote:
Irrelevant, and a stupid unconstitutional law. Thanks, Nixon.

Into the Night wrote:
Got to fan the faith of the religious mob, you know.

Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot create energy out of nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics)
* You cannot trap heat. (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics)
* You cannot trap light. (Planck's law)
...
...

tmiddles wrote:
For knowing that Venus is hotter than Mercury it's not.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Satellites are incapable of measuring...

Satellites can estimate them. If you insist on putting a tiny thermometer on every cubic millimeter in the cosmos to obtain the assurance you desire, not much I can do to help you.

VernerHornung wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
It is still an unknown value, otherwise known as speculation.

The number of people with flu is speculative, but the fact that more people have it on January 26 than in previous weeks is not.

VernerHornung wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
We don't know if the temp is rising. Remember, we only have a fair idea of the global mean temp?

We don't need the exact value of the global mean temp to know whether it's going up or down.

VernerHornung wrote:
x + 1 > x.

This is true no matter what x is. Now suppose that f(x) is any monotone increasing function of x. Even if we don't know the value of x, we do know that

f(x + 1) > f(x).

VernerHornung wrote:
The only thing the weatherwomen need to prove is that the weighted average of their temperature figures,

VernerHornung wrote:
f(x), is a monotone function of the true average temperature x.

VernerHornung wrote:
It's unlikely that with 7500 land stations and thousands of ships plying the seas, the areas not covered by these instruments are magically cooler to compensate for the warming the instruments observe.

VernerHornung wrote:
Thermal radiation measurements from satellites aren't wont to go up if the Earth's cooling down.

VernerHornung wrote:
The error you're talking about would matter if we had very little data,

VernerHornung wrote:
or if all our data came from one portion of the Earth.

VernerHornung wrote:
But we have lots of data, well spread around our planet.

VernerHornung wrote:
My single doubt is about whether climate models forecast the future accurately,

VernerHornung wrote:
as knowledge of paleoclimates and natural forcings

VernerHornung wrote:
remains provisional.

VernerHornung wrote:
We can even ask whether the temp hike since 1850 might be due to natural causes, and I do.

VernerHornung wrote:
Yet the hike itself is real,

VernerHornung wrote:
and because CO2 is known (Svante Arrhenius, 1896) to force temps up other things being equal,

VernerHornung wrote:
it's a suspect in crime good enough for any cop.

VernerHornung wrote:
A quarter of the CO2 now overhead has appeared in my lifetime

VernerHornung wrote:
while we've pumped fumes skyward.

VernerHornung wrote:
And it's been measured with high precision atop Mauna Loa,

VernerHornung wrote:
a high, unpolluted place,

VernerHornung wrote:
since 1957-58's International Geophysical Year.

VernerHornung wrote:
There's even a seasonal jiggle, low in northern hemisphere fall after plants have absorbed a lot of CO2, high in spring when the plants have been dead overwinter.

VernerHornung wrote:
The southern hemisphere has less land, fewer plants, and doesn't counteract the dominant north.

VernerHornung wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
What's real is that there is no way to heat a warmer surface with a cooler gas.

The gases do not heat the surface. They impede loss of heat from the surface by exchanging radiant energy with it.

VernerHornung wrote:
Not all energy flows are heat, only those caused by temperature difference are.

VernerHornung wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody radiation from, or absorption by, a given surface occur regardless of the temperatures other surfaces in the universe lie at.

VernerHornung wrote:
Yup. You, in winter blast, emit photons toward the hot sun if outdoors on a sunny day, and the sun absorbs them, impeding a bit of its heat loss.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
That requires absolute measurements.

No, it doesn't, as I explained above.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No, that's called a base rate fallacy, and is a math error as well as a logic error, stemming from a false equivalence.

It's not a fallacy.

VernerHornung wrote:
Base rate fallacies arise when something that's rare suddenly doubles and people freak out.

VernerHornung wrote:
Or when it's common, and people freak out over minor fluctuations.

VernerHornung wrote:
While a 1 Kelvin change in the Earth's roughly 300K absolute temperature is pretty small, 0.3%, it's enough to matter.

VernerHornung wrote:
Were it to go up 20% we'd have a nearly sterile planet.

VernerHornung wrote:

Are the lumps in this noisy, contrast-biased Venera 9 image rocks?

VernerHornung wrote:
The problem you're considering is either noise in the data or systematic bias introduced as data collection methodology changes. I concede both of these are possible, and that's why I don't subscribe to the panic mentality around climate change.

VernerHornung wrote:
But the deniers ostrich their heads into the sand

Ostriches don't put their heads in the sand, not even when threatened. It is YOU that is denying science and mathematics here.

VernerHornung wrote:
at what that looks too plausible to warrant neglect.

Denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and denying statistical mathematics is NOT a plausible argument.

You can't even DEFINE 'global warming' or 'climate change'.

VernerHornung wrote:
I'm not gonna second-guess the folks at NCAR Boulder who spend their careers on the subject,

I don't 2nd guess. I will simply challenge anyone that denies these theories of science or mathematics, no matter who they are.

VernerHornung wrote:
very lefties they be, in favor of a retired engineer who's become a right-wing pundit online.

Bulverism fallacy.

VernerHornung wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
You can't use cooked data in statistical math.

Yes, you can,

VernerHornung wrote:
if you keep in mind the uncertainties inherent in cooking.

VernerHornung wrote:
Herrnstein & Murray had no trouble using factor analysis to get IQ data

VernerHornung wrote:
from widely variant US studies and from Africa to support a conclusion that whites and Asians are smarter than blacks—

VernerHornung wrote:
which may well be true despite PC's psychologists excoriating The Bell Curve.

VernerHornung wrote:
After all, notwithstanding the social construction of race and the disparate environmental experience, the groups are genetically distinct from one another.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Selection MUST be by randN, and the RAW data MUST be available for inspection.

Then you can simply reject use of stats altogether.

VernerHornung wrote:
Totally random sampling is impossible in the real world.

VernerHornung wrote:
The raw datasets, meanwhile, are open to your inspection if you want to download them.

VernerHornung wrote:
It'll be a mess to keep you busy 'til 2595.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Further, statistics is not capable of prediction.

You mean correlation isn't causation, and I already know that.

VernerHornung wrote:
And nobody can predict the future.

VernerHornung wrote:
I already know that, too.

VernerHornung wrote:
Didn't stop Glenn Beck's monologues on the imminent demise of the USA that waxed so weary Roger Ailes dismissed him from Fox.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures, which are absolutely necessary to describe a trend of any kind.

Satellites can estimate them.

VernerHornung wrote:
If you insist on putting a tiny thermometer on every cubic millimeter in the cosmos to obtain the assurance you desire, not much I can do to help you.

VernerHornung wrote:
All decisions are made with incomplete data,

VernerHornung wrote:
or with proxy variables believed causally related to phenomena one can't measure directly.

VernerHornung wrote:
Think about it when approaching an ATM at night and a shifty fella with a bulge in his pocket is hanging around.

VernerHornung wrote:
You retreat to your car and leave.

VernerHornung wrote:
But the guy's almost harmless, statistically speaking,

VernerHornung wrote:
so we've a choice based on much less evidence than available for climate change.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Irrelevant, and a stupid unconstitutional law. Thanks, Nixon.

Forum topic's climate change, not constitutional law.

VernerHornung wrote:
I've already ventured farther into politics than I should have.

VernerHornung wrote:
Nixon had sense to realize energy was becoming a matter of concern.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Got to fan the faith of the religious mob, you know.

Topic's not religion, either.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot create energy out of nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics)
* You cannot trap heat. (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics)
* You cannot trap light. (Planck's law)
...
...

(plus 55 lines of blather not quoted here)

VernerHornung wrote:
Take it up with the folks at NCAR. Tell them why their models are bunkum.

VernerHornung wrote:
If you do, then I'll read you on physics.

VernerHornung wrote:
Energy is a concept anyway,

VernerHornung wrote:
a conserved quantity by definition, with no known counterexamples to militate against relying on it to date.

VernerHornung wrote:
Heat is flow of energy between system and environment due to a difference of temperature, also by definition;

VernerHornung wrote:
of course you can't trap it—it's flowing, and would stop flowing if trapped, negating our definition of heat.

VernerHornung wrote:
Light is absorbed and changes to some other form of energy if halted;

VernerHornung wrote:
it can only move at speed c per Maxwell. We all know that already.

VernerHornung wrote:
None of this stuff, which you post everywhere, tells me why we should discard the published science.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
For knowing that Venus is hotter than Mercury it's not.

Ja. It was blatant:

tmiddles wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Satellites are incapable of measuring...

Satellites can estimate them. If you insist on putting a tiny thermometer on every cubic millimeter in the cosmos to obtain the assurance you desire, not much I can do to help you.

Just FYI Verner, I really tried with Into the Night and IBdaMann on this board and neither EVER affirmed that any data/experiment/example of any kind was useable in the 5 years they've been here. EVERYTHING is unknown according to them. Good example here (thorough study of skin's emissivity dismissed by ITN):

tmiddles wrote:
I'm not saying don't bother. You're doing an excellent job of clearly breaking things down.

tmiddles wrote:
It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course

tmiddles wrote:
but to find the best way for the rest of us to understand it.

tmiddles wrote:
Great post again.

IBdaMann wrote:
...Oh yeah, I met a person who has doubt about any of the Global Warming crap being real. Conclusion: Doubt exists about Global Warming being real.

tmiddles wrote:
...It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course but to find the best way for the rest of us to understand it. You don't want a pile of cut off arms in the village after the vaccination!

tmiddles wrote:Good example here (thorough study of skin's emissivity dismissed by ITN)...

Into the Night wrote (p. 1, August 28, 2019 21:06 UT):
Hey! Look at that! The test subject's skin temperature is the same as the room! The only heat is to heat the air in the room. You [tmiddles] are ignoring conduction completely.

Into the Night wrote:
You are describing absolute measurements and comparing them. Are are attempting a base rate fallacy again.

Into the Night wrote:
Use English. It works much better.

Into the Night wrote:
How unlikely? Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to show raw data. Failure to remove biasing influences. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare dataset... Irrelevant... Irrelevant... Irrelevant.

Into the Night wrote:
The bell curve is irrelevant. Racism is racism. It is a compositional error fallacy involving people as the class and a genetic trait as the property.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
...Oh yeah, I met a person who has doubt about any of the Global Warming crap being real. Conclusion: Doubt exists about Global Warming being real.

Three blokes doubted. Ninety-seven did not.
Conclusion: substantial unanimity.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
...It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course but to find the best way for the rest of us to understand it. You don't want a pile of cut off arms in the village after the vaccination!

You're onto the white coats doing a bum job of parsing this so nonscientists get the gist. Climate change jargon's confusing.

VernerHornung wrote:
It's gotten us Extinction Rebellion hourglass flags where I don't recall anything went extinct in the ice-free Cretaceous 'til the asteroid blew the dinos away.

VernerHornung wrote:
With ideologues mixed up in it, in USA we've a Green New Deal (H. Res. 109, 116th Congress) of healthcare, housing, Indigenous people, reparations for historical wrongs and "community-defined solutions" having little to do with energy production and use, the things we must control if emissions are to drop. Bad vaccine reaction in the works indeed. Having communities define the solutions is the worst course; every town will enact a policy at cross-purposes with the next town in that case. Energy really is a national affair.

VernerHornung wrote:
Never thought I'd find myself pining for Nixon, Ford and Carter in 2019.
~

VernerHornung wrote:
I won't reply there, as the load of self-contradiction ITN-style feels too heavy. Thermodynamics is a tough subject grad students regularly flail in,

VernerHornung wrote:
and one I don't claim encyclopedic authority on.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You are describing absolute measurements and comparing them. Are are attempting a base rate fallacy again.

Oh, dearie! Can't butt heads on your novel-length list of points,

VernerHornung wrote:
so I'll respond to a select few. I'm not describing absolute measurements on this one;

VernerHornung wrote:
I'm describing a property of any monotone function f(x).

VernerHornung wrote:
It's familiar to any student who's had first-semester calculus.

VernerHornung wrote:
The graphs of such functions always rise from lower left to upper right and never jag back downward.
...deleted irrelevant images...

VernerHornung wrote:
A base-rate conundrum would bollux only if the slope of f(x) is very steep or nearly flat,

VernerHornung wrote:
which the weather station and satellite data are not.

VernerHornung wrote:
All values are within 1% or so of Kelvins of one another,

VernerHornung wrote:
with a smooth upward progression over time, strongly suggesting x is monotone smooth over t and f(x) monotone smooth over x.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Use English. It works much better.

Ahh...here you admonish me to use 20th century "weathermen," and then go on to slap the race card, and our Lord Jesus Christ (who was probably born between 10 and 2 BCE, knocking Gregorian slightly out of kilter), on the baize (next item, below). But I chose "weatherwomen" to note that female forecasters exist. English is gendered, like all other languages.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
How unlikely? Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to show raw data. Failure to remove biasing influences. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare dataset... Irrelevant... Irrelevant... Irrelevant.

Now you're sounding like my computer when it's mad at me.

VernerHornung wrote:
I grew up when "computer" meant consoles and tape drives the size of washing machines in a special, air-conditioned room, and slide rules were still in vogue.

VernerHornung wrote:
I've trouble computing the private vocabulary randN and randU you resort to every other comment.

VernerHornung wrote:
"error message gibberish," I tell the oracle.

VernerHornung wrote:
I don't know which dataset you're requesting,

VernerHornung wrote:
or what the second moments of its random variables might be;

VernerHornung wrote:
those are likely in the IPCC documents' references.

VernerHornung wrote:
By now I'm sure you're aware I've decided to trust the climatologists did those calculations properly

VernerHornung wrote:
so I don't have to. 69-year brains lose a lot of the math they held when 24.

VernerHornung wrote:
I hope you'll pardon me for not trying to reinvent wheels as I read.

VernerHornung wrote:
Finally, I've gotta dispense with the racism charges:

Into the Night wrote:
The bell curve is irrelevant. Racism is racism. It is a compositional error fallacy involving people as the class and a genetic trait as the property.

VernerHornung wrote:
and I claimed no genetic trait,

VernerHornung wrote:
only that the genomes differ.

VernerHornung wrote:
The class is the social construct of race I mentioned above, sorting US residents into white, black, Native American, Alaska Native, Asian, or Pacific Islander by race and Latino/Hispanic or non by ethnicity. Most Latinos are white.

VernerHornung wrote:
In 2010, the Census Bureau allowed respondents to pick two or more categories; racial-ethnic group is by self-identification.

VernerHornung wrote:
We agree Herrnstein, Jensen, Murray and Spearman's g from 1904 are all racist. Yet "racist" is both label and ideology,

VernerHornung wrote:
and I chose The Bell Curve as example specifically for that reason—

VernerHornung wrote:
a politically controversial, and politically supervised, topic in which some questions cannot be asked and some research cannot be done.

VernerHornung wrote:
H & M turned to the Heritage Foundation after the universities refused them.

VernerHornung wrote:
As ideology, racism is the belief that one race (socially constructed) is superior to the others in a physical, mental or moral sense.

VernerHornung wrote:
As label, it's what whacks you whenever your utterances discomfit the Millennial woke.

VernerHornung wrote:
The Bell Curve docked larded with 1990s conservative views and jump-overs on comparability.

VernerHornung wrote:
The geometric shapes, colors and numerals WAIS and WISC billboard to the test-taker presume a background where playing with such abstractions is encouraged in school. Blacks in school or in Africa may have been directed—by environmental imperatives—to attend to the concrete instead. This penalizes them when they're tested.

VernerHornung wrote:
Then we have the meaning of "smarter," exhibit in my post, possibly conflated with scores on the WAIS or WISC, the operational definition for the IQ construct.

VernerHornung wrote:
Yet at the same time, group mean scores on this task differ, and the groups are genetically distinct.

VernerHornung wrote:
We've to assess the relative contributions genes and environment make to IQ.

VernerHornung wrote:
Personally, given verisimilar brain anatomy, I think environment matters more.

VernerHornung wrote:
Zambian thatch-roof schoolrooms teaching what kids need to know in Zambia aren't the same as Wyoming's.

VernerHornung wrote:
Still, brains evolved in Africa may be optimized for different intellectual tasks than those modified in Europe. Thus genes in exam as well.

VernerHornung wrote:
Analogy to climate change is global mean temperature being influenced by natural versus anthropogenic causes,

VernerHornung wrote:
where again, some questions cannot be asked and some research cannot be done.

VernerHornung wrote:
Truth is relative and uncertain in any such quiz.

VernerHornung wrote:
That's what bothers me about the issue.

VernerHornung wrote:
[quote][ September 14, 2019 21:10UT] Into the Night wrote:
A single molecule has a temperature, so why not? This is really just an instrumentation problem.

Almost forgot this, but what happened to the kinetic theory of gases?

VernerHornung wrote:
Temperature's a statistical property of bulk matter, not a property of individual molecules.

VernerHornung wrote:
And before we dive deeper into the physics, here's a little thermodynamic paradox:



Bodies A and B are not perfectly black, that is, they're not cavity radiators. Each tends to emit at its own preferred wavelengths. They begin at the same temperature, and should therefore radiate equal energy toward one another. But interposition of a band pass filter selecting one of B's emission wavelengths dims A's emissions at this wavelength, causing A to accumulate more energy per unit time than B does, and therefore get hotter. If so, this violates the second law. What's wrong with the picture? Assume A and B constitute the universe.

Easy; no math required. I'll await your reply.

Into the Night wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
Heat is flow of energy between system and environment due to a difference of temperature

WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, period.

Into the Night wrote:
Free markets are immortal.

Into the Night wrote:
...variation of Maxwell's demon...

VernerHornung wrote:Maxwell's demon is the size of an atom.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
...Oh yeah, I met a person who has doubt about any of the Global Warming crap being real. Conclusion: Doubt exists about Global Warming being real.

Three blokes doubted. Ninety-seven did not.
Conclusion: substantial unanimity.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
Heat is flow of energy between system and environment due to a difference of temperature

WRONG. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, period.

RIGHT. Quote from book: "Heat is energy that flows between a system and its environment because of a temperature difference between them."

Physics
Halliday & Resnick, 5th ed., p. 517 (p. 533 of pdf)
Internet Archive
https://ia802901.us.archive.org/32/items/KraneResnickAndHallidayPhysics5thEd.Vol.1/Krane%2C%20Resnick%20and%20Halliday%20-%20Physics%20%285th%20ed.%29%20Vol.%201.pdf

Just to let you know I'm not lying to you.
~

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Free markets are immortal.

Free markets had a birthdate, a timepoint before which they did not exist. And they may see an end, a date after which they will no longer exist. Endless population and consumption growth ala Julian Simon, the progression you seem to enjoy, renders that denouement more likely.
~

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
...variation of Maxwell's demon...

Maxwell's demon is the size of an atom. The bandpass filter is macroscopic, and you can buy one at a photography buffs' store. The answer is that the bandpass filter itself, as a macroscopic object, also emits radiation toward body B, and body A radiates toward the bandpass filter at other than Lambda zero for indirect conveyance toward B. See? No math, no quantum mechanics.
~

Into the Night wrote:
Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.

IBdaMann wrote:
Maxwell's demon is exactly the size required for the given thought experiment.

IBdaMann wrote:
You obviously failed Logic 101.

Into the Night wrote:
The book is correct, but not precise. It is not a legal document. Don't treat it like one. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, period.

Into the Night wrote:
How do you know? Were you there?

Into the Night wrote:
IQ does not indicate who is smarter or dumber.

Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. False authority fallacy. Racism. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. Racism...

Into the Night wrote:
Void argument fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (data<->research). Void argument fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy. Paired randR has nothing to do with compositional error fallacies. Irrelevance fallacy. Irrelevance. Irrelevance. Irrelevance...

Into the Night wrote:
Word salad. Try English. It works better... Word salad. Try English. It works better...

VernerHornung wrote:In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that neither logic nor mathematics is a closed system.

VernerHornung wrote:Gödel's proof was reasonably short and elementary, leading us to wonder why it took so long to dethrone Frege and his vision of a closed mathematics.

VernerHornung wrote:An instance of undecidability is the Turing machine.

VernerHornung wrote:To resolve an undecidable, if one wishes to do so, requires introducing new axioms to the system. The resulting system then has undecidable theorems of its own, and you introduce more axioms again, but to no avail, as every axiom you add just creates more undecidable theorems. Thus systems expand forever.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Maxwell's demon is exactly the size required for the given thought experiment.

Ja. Big enough to open and shut a valve that lets one molecule at a time pass to the side of a divided compartment of initially equithermal gas he wants to heat up. He opens for the faster-moving molecules on the side he wants to cool, or the slower-moving ones on the side he wants to heat.

VernerHornung wrote:Thermal energy is just any energy that will flow to a cooler body given a difference of temperature. No more, no less. As you seem eager to ignore differences of temperature, I'm gonna harp on it again. I like the 2nd edition of 1981 better, however. It ran only 870 pages and made every word in its crisp definitions count. And to avoid confusing the student, it never mentioned thermal energy, just difference of temperature and heat. The internal state of the system is unimportant for thermodynamic laws.
~

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
How do you know? Were you there?

Do you believe George Washington camped his troops at Valley Forge winter 1777-78?

VernerHornung wrote:Meanwhile, you decline to acknowledge I take IQ and Bell Curve and climate change prognoses with healthy doses of skepticism.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.

In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that neither logic nor mathematics is a closed system. There are undecidable theorems in any system extensive enough to describe arithmetic. Gödel's proof was reasonably short and elementary, leading us to wonder why it took so long to dethrone Frege and his vision of a closed mathematics. An instance of undecidability is the Turing machine. We don't know whether a Turing machine will stop if given an arbitrary input tape, and per Gödel incompleteness, we'll never know.

To resolve an undecidable, if one wishes to do so, requires introducing new axioms to the system. The resulting system then has undecidable theorems of its own, and you introduce more axioms again, but to no avail, as every axiom you add just creates more undecidable theorems. Thus systems expand forever.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Maxwell's demon is exactly the size required for the given thought experiment.

Ja. Big enough to open and shut a valve that lets one molecule at a time pass to the side of a divided compartment of initially equithermal gas he wants to heat up. He opens for the faster-moving molecules on the side he wants to cool, or the slower-moving ones on the side he wants to heat. Alas, not to be, no matter how big he is.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You obviously failed Logic 101.

Ja. When I chose to come on this forum and argue with you fellas.
~

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The book is correct, but not precise. It is not a legal document. Don't treat it like one. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, period.

It's better than legal,

VernerHornung wrote:
as in physics the law

VernerHornung wrote:
itself punishes you if you step over the parapet of a high rooftop

VernerHornung wrote:
—no cops at all.

VernerHornung wrote:
Thermal energy is just any energy that will flow to a cooler body given a difference of temperature. No more, no less.

VernerHornung wrote:
As you seem eager to ignore differences of temperature, I'm gonna harp on it again.

VernerHornung wrote:
I like the 2nd edition of 1981 better, however. It ran only 870 pages and made every word in its crisp definitions count.

VernerHornung wrote:
And to avoid confusing the student, it never mentioned thermal energy, just difference of temperature and heat.

VernerHornung wrote:
The internal state of the system is unimportant for thermodynamic laws.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
How do you know? Were you there?

Do you believe George Washington camped his troops at Valley Forge winter 1777-78?

VernerHornung wrote:
Don't worry. I believe it, too, thanks to writing's ability to preserve memory past human lifespan.

VernerHornung wrote:
The emergence of free markets beginning in the philosophy of John Locke circa 1690 is well-documented.

VernerHornung wrote:
England and Scotland had lots of guilds and lords of the manor and other kinds of unfree distribution in medieval days.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
IQ does not indicate who is smarter or dumber.

And that's what I acknowledged, placing "smarter" in quotes to indicate its possible disconnect with IQ on the WAIS and WISC. Nevertheless, Spearman's g correlates with performance on a wide variety of real-life tasks. We speak of "dumb" football players, yet college and pro athletes score higher on IQ than similarly beefy guys not on the gridiron. Smarts matters in contact sports.

VernerHornung wrote:
...random rant deleted...

Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. False authority fallacy. Racism. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. Racism. Bigotry. Racism...

"Oops! Computer in Social Work's down, Tashawn."

Into the Night wrote:
Void argument fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (data<->research). Void argument fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy. Paired randR has nothing to do with compositional error fallacies. Irrelevance fallacy. Irrelevance. Irrelevance. Irrelevance...

"It's spreading, Jim! Philosophy's down, too! And Computer Science!"

Into the Night wrote:
Word salad. Try English. It works better... Word salad. Try English. It works better...

"Psychology's offline!"

"Allright, young 'uns, cut the power. We've gotta get those moths out of the motherboards again. Unless it's Stuxnet, returning to us from Iran's revolving centrifuges."

Arab oil. Persian oil. Venezuelan oil. Arab oil. Persian oil....
~

VernerHornung wrote:
But thanks for telling me what randN, randR and randU mean. Selection with or without replacement, or pseudorandom number generated from a seed.
~

Into the Night wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
But thanks for telling me what randN, randR and randU mean. Selection with or without replacement, or pseudorandom number generated from a seed.
~

WRONG. No seed required for any type of random number.

Into the Night wrote: randR is the random number associated with dice. The number can be repeated any number of times or occur not at all in a given sequence. It has no memory.

Into the Night wrote:randN is the random number associated with a deck of cards. It has a memory. Once a card is pulled, it cannot be pulled again until a reset event occurs (such as a shuffle).

Into the Night wrote: randU is the 'predictable' random number. These are numbers just pulled out of the air by someone, or an algorithm that does the same thing. randU is often used to embellish an argument by using it as 'data'. To use this kind of number this way is a fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:
As long as we have a subthread about terminology, I'll be more than happy to jump in.

Into the Night wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
But thanks for telling me what randN, randR and randU mean. Selection with or without replacement, or pseudorandom number generated from a seed.
~

WRONG. No seed required for any type of random number.

To be fair, seeds are required for pseudorandom numbers (which is what he was claiming). Pseudorandom numbers, however, are not random numbers and VernerHornung was in error when he claimed that that is what you were describing.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: randR is the random number associated with dice. The number can be repeated any number of times or occur not at all in a given sequence. It has no memory.

In my lexicon, I refer to this as an actual random number generator, but just as all bodies in nature have an emissivity strictly between zero and one, all random number generators in nature have a non-zero bias of some sort, e.g. when dealing with dice in Vegas the objective is to get the biases sufficiently close to zero.

IBdaMann wrote:
I like the term "randR" because it saves one the trouble from having to write out "random number generator." Whenever a randR is discussed, the bias parameter(s) should be addressed.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:randN is the random number associated with a deck of cards. It has a memory. Once a card is pulled, it cannot be pulled again until a reset event occurs (such as a shuffle).

In my lexicon, this is combinatorics, i.e. discrete math. This covers combinations and permutations. I don't see it so much as a random number but as a discussion on probability ... just in word problem format.

Once again, "randN" is a much shorter way to express the concept.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: randU is the 'predictable' random number. These are numbers just pulled out of the air by someone, or an algorithm that does the same thing. randU is often used to embellish an argument by using it as 'data'. To use this kind of number this way is a fallacy.

In my lexicon, this is an arbitrarily chosen number. Other words that apply "fabricated," "concocted," "selected," "cherry-picked," "predetermined," "pulled-out-of-one's-nostril," etc...

IBdaMann wrote:
None of the above are pseudorandom number generators, which are merely deterministic formulae, i.e. mathematical calculations, that meet certain tests, e.g. spectral test, for appearance of "randomness." In the same manner that we could have a philosophical discussion on what is required for non-intelligent machines to simulate artificial intelligence, we could also have a philosophical discussion concerning what is required by completely deterministic mathematical calculations to nonetheless "appear" to be generating random numbers.
.

IBdaMann wrote:
Until you add axioms, the system is ... what? Say it: The system is ... CLOSED

IBdaMann wrote:
[Maxwell's Demon has no size...]

IBdaMann wrote:
your grievance is with tmiddles.

IBdaMann wrote:
As long as you acknowledge that you are firmly in the realm of beliefs and not in the realm of "what we know."

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

Into the Night wrote:
Mathematics is bound by its axioms.

Into the Night wrote:
Nope. Not a legal document.

Into the Night wrote:
The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science are the authors of that theory.

Into the Night wrote:
They are theories, formalized into a closed system to gain the power of prediction. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. No theory is ever proven.

Into the Night wrote:
Hang gliding is punishment?

Into the Night wrote:
Nope. Only the movement of thermal energy.

Into the Night wrote:
No, I am not. A difference of temperature may not result in heat at all, though it is necessary for heat to flow.

Into the Night wrote:
You are attempting to use a past unobserved event as a proof.

Into the Night wrote:
Free markets existed long before Locke!

Into the Night wrote:
No seed required for any type of random number.

Into the Night wrote:
England is not the world.

IBdaMann wrote:Let's see. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

VernerHornung wrote:The dispute concerns only whether human activity is responsible for climate change.

VernerHornung wrote: None too many of the "deniers" (I don't really like left's label; I'm using it here for brevity)

VernerHornung wrote: have declared greenhouse effect nonexistent.

VernerHornung wrote: VernerHornung wrote: They merely assert that the latter stems predominantly from natural causes, and that human activity has little influence on climate.

VernerHornung wrote: Greenhouse effect is a matter of fact,

VernerHornung wrote: not just belief.

VernerHornung wrote: Global warming over the last 150 years is similarly fact.

VernerHornung wrote: Anthropogenic causation is probative given natural causes are present.

VernerHornung wrote: I see it as likely enough to make assigning priority to countermeasures advisable, although I don't put much stock in the apocalyptic views of it.

VernerHornung wrote: Gödel showed that the consistency of arithmetic cannot be proven from within arithmetic itself.

VernerHornung wrote: Maxwell's Demon requires foresight at the quantum level. That's basically what's wrong with it.

VernerHornung wrote: Valley Forge is not a belief. It's knowable by its matters of fact.

VernerHornung wrote:The impossibility of having complete information on Valley Forge, or any other historical event, doesn't force us into speculation about the unknown.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

The dispute concerns only whether human activity is responsible for climate change.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course

Science doesn't figure out council. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
...It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course but to find the best way for the rest of us to understand it.

You're onto the white coats doing a bum job of parsing this so nonscientists get the gist.

Into the Night wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
I've trouble computing the private vocabulary randN and randU you resort to every other comment.

This has been explained before, but not to you. I...randR is ...randN is

IBdaMann wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that neither logic nor mathematics is a closed system.

That is not what he proved. Read the theorem again.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
your grievance is with tmiddles.

I don't think tmiddles has denied that the atmosphere is cooler than the Earth's surface. He's merely said that a cooler object can radiate energy toward a warmer one, which is true. Not all transfers of energy are heat. Light can be converted to electrical energy, for instance.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science are the authors of that theory.

That's not true.

GasGuzzler wrote:The dispute concerns whether the Earth is even warming.

GasGuzzler wrote:How does CO2 reduce heat?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Define global climate again please.

IBdaMann wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:The impossibility of having complete information on Valley Forge, or any other historical event, doesn't force us into speculation about the unknown.

Yes, that is exactly what it does. Speculation. It's all we have.

IBdaMann wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
The dispute concerns only whether human activity is responsible for climate change.

No, it's a question of English comprehension. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

The dispute concerns only whether human activity is responsible for climate change.

VernerHornung wrote:
None too many of the "deniers" (I don't really like left's label; I'm using it here for brevity) have declared greenhouse effect nonexistent or climate change unreal.

VernerHornung wrote:
They merely assert that the latter stems predominantly from natural causes,

VernerHornung wrote:
and that human activity has little influence on climate.

VernerHornung wrote:
Greenhouse effect is a matter of fact,

VernerHornung wrote:
not just belief.

VernerHornung wrote:
Global warming over the last 150 years is similarly fact.

VernerHornung wrote:
Anthropogenic causation is probative given natural causes are present.

VernerHornung wrote:
I see it as likely enough to make assigning priority to countermeasures advisable, although I don't put much stock in the apocalyptic views of it.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Mathematics is bound by its axioms.

You can choose which axioms you want to use, however. Dropping the parallel postulate allows for elliptic and hyperbolic geometries.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Nope. Not a legal document.

I never said it was.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science are the authors of that theory.

That's not true.

VernerHornung wrote:
Hardly anyone except historians of science reads the Principia today.

VernerHornung wrote:
Convenient and much easier notations for formulating Newton's laws have been developed since then,

VernerHornung wrote:
and some of Newton's statements modified or supplemented.

VernerHornung wrote:
But no one considers modern texts on mechanics as lacking authority.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
They are theories, formalized into a closed system to gain the power of prediction. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. No theory is ever proven.

Agreed.
The predictions of a scientific theory may be controverted by new observations or experiments, as with phlogiston, in which case a new theory is needed.

And the climatologists' theories about the Earth's radiation budget will probably be revised later on; climatology is a relatively new field.

VernerHornung wrote:
Still, note phlogiston explained quite a bit. It worked fine for describing flow of heat from candle flame to melting wax in spoon, and ran off the road only when it arrived at Joule's experiment with the paddle wheels in the calorimeter, the "mechanical equivalent of heat."

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Hang gliding is punishment?

I wouldn't try even with a hang glider.

VernerHornung wrote:
Arne Tanzer landed safely after launching from the De Johanna Apartments' roof in Utrecht a couple years ago.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No, I am not. A difference of temperature may not result in heat at all, though it is necessary for heat to flow.

Difference of temperature always leads to some heat from warmer region to cooler,

VernerHornung wrote:
unless a perfectly insulating box encloses a region to isolate it from the universe.

VernerHornung wrote:
In practice, we may neglect the heat involved if it's small enough.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You are attempting to use a past unobserved event as a proof.

The winter camp at Valley Forge was observed by thousands of people.

VernerHornung wrote:
You're claiming it unobserved just because 20th century folks missed out.

VernerHornung wrote:
Ja. I'm aware of the pitfalls in using historical info.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Free markets existed long before Locke!

Precious few of them.

VernerHornung wrote:
Markets require guards to prevent robberies, frauds or raids and commercial codes to enforce contract and defend title to property, which already chips away at that freedom.

VernerHornung wrote:
Our notion of "free" also requires a concept of individualism that's barely a few hundred years old.

VernerHornung wrote:
Individualism, in turn, can exist only within a state.

VernerHornung wrote:
Before the formation of the state, people were much more communal than we are.

VernerHornung wrote:
They had to band together because there was no one to safeguard individuals or familes wandering about alone.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No seed required for any type of random number.

Pseudorandom number algorithms use a seed.

VernerHornung wrote:
But I'll be nice and let you use dodecahedral dice instead.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
England is not the world.

Never said it was.

VernerHornung wrote:
Holland (independent from Spain in 1575), England and Scotland were among the first to adopt free domestic markets, which they protected by mercantilist foreign policies rendered feasible as all were maritime trading countries. Free markets are neither immortal nor inevitable.

VernerHornung wrote:
They're rare,

VernerHornung wrote:
historically, becoming a global "norm" after WWII, and even the freest markets aren't laissez-faire.

VernerHornung wrote:
I value them for their growth and innovation potentials, but don't see them as an object of worship.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course

Science doesn't figure out council. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument.

Your definition of science is one you made up. You have never, in 5 years, pointed out the "right way" to go about anything useful or productive.

tmiddles wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
...It's of course very important to not only have science figure out the best course but to find the best way for the rest of us to understand it.

You're onto the white coats doing a bum job of parsing this so nonscientists get the gist.

I think one major problem with science in society has been that everything is presented with the same definitive tone. We "know" ______. No matter what it is. So the thing's we're close to certain of get tossed in a salad with things that are entirely unsupported by evidence. It would almost be helpful if there was a color coding system for certainty!

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
I've trouble computing the private vocabulary randN and randU you resort to every other comment.

This has been explained before, but not to you. I...randR is ...randN is

You just make things up and pretend it's old hat ITN. You waste everyones time when you do that. This is a google search for:randr randn randu Nada!
Oh and VernerHornung you should be aware that ITN/IBD don't endorse ANY textbooks or publications of any kind. They are all corrupted by warmazombies or something. So ITN would be hard pressed to say where his private vocab came from.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that neither logic nor mathematics is a closed system.

That is not what he proved. Read the theorem again.

This never ending game of "hide the ball" is just designed to frustrate you and stifle debate. Of course an inquisitive mind interested in discussion would put forward their point of view or what the correct info is.

tmiddles wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
your grievance is with tmiddles.

I don't think tmiddles has denied that the atmosphere is cooler than the Earth's surface. He's merely said that a cooler object can radiate energy toward a warmer one, which is true. Not all transfers of energy are heat. Light can be converted to electrical energy, for instance.

Radiance has three options upon striking a body: Absorption, Transmission or Reflection

Radiance leaving a cooler object is absorbed by hotter objects. The energy is thermal. It's not "heat" because that is the net flow of thermal energy (like "Profit" for a company). This is proven here: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

tmiddles wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science are the authors of that theory.

That's not true.

I would agree it's not true at all and ITN is engaged in an appeal to authority. What is absurd is that he is currently hiding from this topic I made just for him!: Max Planck debunks ITN

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:The dispute concerns whether the Earth is even warming.

So you don't believe there was even an ice age and we are no longer in it?
Also "the dispute" implies the active participation of more than a few nuts. You could say there is a dispute about whether the Earth is flat (there's a forum for that) but you'd just be wrong.

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:How does CO2 reduce heat?

Right here: Why CO2 can cause a higher ground level temperature Why are you not taking me up on the invite to debate it?

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Define global climate again please.

Climate is the weather long term (in the case of Earth is an annual cycle) and we are concerned with the temperature part of weather in this case.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:The impossibility of having complete information on Valley Forge, or any other historical event, doesn't force us into speculation about the unknown.

Yes, that is exactly what it does. Speculation. It's all we have.

To call everything speculation is a bit of a pointless exercise isn't it? We could reprogram a Teddy Ruxpin to say "It is uncertain" to every question posed to it and it would be as useful as your commentary.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
The dispute concerns only whether human activity is responsible for climate change.

No, it's a question of English comprehension. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

I do. Are you pretending there is no distinction to be made between the natural and mand made greenhouse effects? Same effect but different causes. You don't have to believe in it to understand there is a distinction and to even debate it.

tmiddles wrote:
"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them.

tmiddles wrote:What is absurd is that he is currently hiding from this topic I made just for him!: Max Planck debunks ITN

tmiddles wrote: To call everything speculation is a bit of a pointless exercise isn't it?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:No, it's a question of English comprehension. Do you believe in Greenhouse Effect?

I do. Are you pretending there is no distinction to be made between the natural and mand made greenhouse effects?

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I do. Are you pretending there is no distinction to be made between the natural and mand made greenhouse effects?

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. Explain 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them.

Repetitious lies and denial of several theories of science.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:What is absurd is that he is currently hiding from this topic

What is absurd is that you are currently avoiding this topic that you created.

IBdaMann wrote:
* In what repeatable test can we isolate some thermal energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object ... even though more thermal energy is flowing the other way?
.

tmiddles wrote: So far you've had no response.

tmiddles wrote: As you are aware the burden is YOURS when you want to revolutionize the laws of physics with some idea of your own.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
* In what repeatable test can we isolate some thermal energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object ... even though more thermal energy is flowing the other way?
.

Fake question. To date you've never given an example/model of what you consider a repeatable example. A person in A room is repeatable.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I do. Are you pretending there is no distinction to be made between the natural and mand made greenhouse effects?

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. Explain 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You mean your invented laws or the currently accepted laws?

tmiddles wrote:
Define which law you think is violated by the radiance from the cooler gases of our atmosphere being absorbed by the ground.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them.

Repetitious lies and denial of several theories of science.

Max Planck debunks you and all you can say is nothing.

tmiddles wrote:
I'm not surprised. Too busy to name theories.

tmiddles wrote:
And pasting platitudes is all you do.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:What is absurd is that he is currently hiding from this topic

What is absurd is that you are currently avoiding this topic that you created.

So far you've had no response. As you are aware the burden is YOURS when you want to revolutionize the laws of physics with some idea of your own.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
* In what repeatable test can we isolate some thermal energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object ... even though more thermal energy is flowing the other way?
.

Fake question. To date you've never given an example/model of what you consider a repeatable example. A person in A room is repeatable.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: As you are aware the burden is YOURS when you want to revolutionize the laws of physics with some idea of your own.

When that day comes, yes I will bear the full burden. For the present I'm just going with existing science.
.

Into the Night wrote:
No. No Theory of Planck debunks anything I've said.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:

tmiddles wrote:This is it. The TRUMP card. A lie, a total fabrication presented as fact.

tmiddles wrote: You version of existing science is contradicted by every text book on thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote: You have no response to Planck debunking you.

tmiddles wrote: You invariably play the game of demanding others do homework.

tmiddles wrote: I think you are insane.

tmiddles wrote: No I won't be doing your homework.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: You version of existing science is contradicted by every text book on thermodynamics.

I see you are still assigning positions to me that are not mine

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: The NET flow of energy is in one direction, from hot to cold.

Just "the flow" of energy is in one direction. Whenever you see someone squeezing the word "net" in front of "flow" then s/he is implying that some of the flow is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote: Separate question: Is there anything that prevents a white hot object from getting hotter due to infra-red radiation?

Yes ... the infrared thermal radiation coming from a cooler object.
Otherwise, if the infrared is coming from a body of higher temperature, then no, there is nothing preventing absorption and an increase in temperature. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies always and everywhere.
...
Bodies of higher temperature radiate particular wavelengths with greater Radiance (radiativity at that wavelength) than bodies of lower temperature (re: Wein's Displacement law) which causes the radiation of that wavelength to be absorbed, bringing the colder body up to a higher energy state (Re: Planck's)
.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: That if EM radiation reaches an object and fails to achieve the necessary energy level it will not be thermalized.

That is correct; it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics hardcoded into Planck's

tmiddles wrote:But what happens to it?

You are going to have a difficult time finding a satisfying answer. This is all I can tell you without researching it further:
1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

Disappointing, eh?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: As you are aware the burden is YOURS when you want to revolutionize the laws of physics with some idea of your own.

When that day comes, yes I will bear the full burden. For the present I'm just going with existing science.
.

This is it. The TRUMP card. A lie, a total fabrication presented as fact.

tmiddles wrote:
You version of existing science is contradicted by every text book on thermodynamics. You have no response to Planck debunking you.

tmiddles wrote:
You invariably play the game of demanding others do homework.

tmiddles wrote:
I think you are insane.

tmiddles wrote:
No I won't be doing your homework.

tmiddles wrote:
I will continue to debate but I won't play your games again.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No. No Theory of Planck debunks anything I've said.

You've been hiding from the topic you debunked fraud.

tmiddles wrote:
A healthy debate is good.

tmiddles wrote:
Even spin is reasonable.

tmiddles wrote:
Deliberately lying and misrepresenting facts is reprehensible.

tmiddles wrote:
You and IBD are the enemies of science and human progress.

Into the Night wrote:
You do not even appreciate what the authors of the theory of the 2nd law of thermodynamics have done.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You do not even appreciate what the authors of the theory of the 2nd law of thermodynamics have done.

Who would they be?

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You do not even appreciate what the authors of the theory of the 2nd law of thermodynamics have done.

Who would they be?

Why don't you go find out?

tmiddles wrote: You and IBD are the enemies of science

tmiddles then wrote: "Good tests kill flawed theories........ - Karl Popper

GasGuzzler wrote:

tmiddles wrote: You and IBD are the enemies of science

tmiddles then wrote: "Good tests kill flawed theories........ - Karl Popper

I've been following this closely...I am here to learn. This is the heart of the global warming by CO2 debate.

IBdaMann has asked for a repeatable example of heat flowing backwards from cold to hot.

If he and ITN are using flawed theories, then a good test should kill it. No?

tmiddles wrote: But here you are in your own words:

IBdaMann wrote:Just "the flow" of energy is in one direction. Whenever you see someone squeezing the word "net" in front of "flow" then s/he is implying that some of the flow is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.