Remember me
▼ Content

Energy and resource crisis in the future



Page 4 of 9<<<23456>>>
19-12-2019 16:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The energy in the photon changes form from electromagnetic energy to indistinguishable thermal energy ...
So what happens to the photon that comes to Earth from the dark side of the moon?

I know, so does Marcus, it's absorbed. What's your answer.

DODGE!

We're talking about thermal energy.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-12-2019 16:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:
DODGE!
Ha! Did you have a question? Marcus presented a photon traveling from the dark side of the moon to Earth. Did you have a question about that or were you trying to change the subject.
19-12-2019 16:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
DODGE!
Ha! Did you have a question? Marcus presented a photon traveling from the dark side of the moon to Earth.

Marcus is pretending to discuss thermal energy flow but is discussing exclusively electromagnetic radiation. Have you had the chance to explain the difference to MarcusR?

I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-12-2019 16:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.
Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.
19-12-2019 16:47
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote:Well, we were discussing EMR, so your point is ???

I wrote in English, so your problem is ???


Seriously.... What was you point with thermal energy and radiation ?
1. Any body above 0K emits EMR
2. A body can not choose what photons to absorb or not. If it absorbs at i.e 10 um it will absorb ANY photons at that frequency.
3. Just do a spectracalc for 299K, 300K and 301K. Get the point ???
19-12-2019 16:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.
Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

Energy in the form of electromagnetic energy is not energy in the form of thermal energy.

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic energy.
Thermal radiation is not thermal energy.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-12-2019 17:05
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.
Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

Energy in the form of electromagnetic energy is not energy in the form of thermal energy.

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic energy.
Thermal radiation is not thermal energy.


.


W is W, and a Ws is a Ws....

I can accept that we all have different opinions, but when we are discussing physics we need to keep opinions out of it.
19-12-2019 17:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
MarcusR wrote:Seriously.... What was you point with thermal energy and radiation ?

Learn to read English then get back to me.

MarcusR wrote: 1. Any body above 0K emits EMR

Correct. I notice you are remaining focused on electromagnetic radiation and apparently have no intention of discussing thermal energy.

Let me know when you you'll actually get to discussing thermal energy.

MarcusR wrote: 2. A body can not choose what photons to absorb or not. If it absorbs at i.e 10 um it will absorb ANY photons at that frequency.

You quoted me in your previous post. You read (or maybe you just chose to ignore it) that everything changes when you switch to a quantum view because the quantum world does not behave in a manner that adheres to our macro world intuition.

It appears you are allowing yourself to be confused by the word "absorb." You apparently are trying to treat matter as a "photon sponge" and you are getting wrapped around the axle over what exactly happens to photons ... and you never just look at the thermal energy picture.

Forget the photons ... or at least let me know when you can and I'll gladly discuss thermal energy with you, and couched in that discussion we can get to discussing photons as they apply to thermal energy.


MarcusR wrote: 3. Just do a spectracalc for 299K, 300K and 301K. Get the point ???

Again, let me know when you finish discussing photons with tmiddles and when you'd like to discuss thermal energy.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-12-2019 17:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...PHOTONS come into play.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.
Which book would you recommend?

IBdaMann wrote:
Forget the photons ...
No.
Edited on 19-12-2019 17:23
19-12-2019 17:58
James___
★★★★★
(3437)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.
Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.


The link is to the SI definition of radiance, irradiance and flux, etc.
Usually when photons are mentioned as an emission then it's usually the photoelectric effect.
If someone wanted to, they could probably calculate how many photons a single wave of (as an example) IR radiation has. Basically divide the energy level of 1 wave by the energy of 1 photon. And remember, a single wavelength is measured in angstroms.
For 1 wave, it's amplitude will need to be known. If you consider w/m2 then divide that by the value of 1 photon.

https://www.energetiq.com/technote-understanding-radiance-brightness-irradiance-radiant-flux
19-12-2019 20:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:He will also lie and claim he did point it out.
Into the Night wrote:
Already did. RQAA.
Just a liar.

Inversion fallacy. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:...climate hysteria is a convinient cover up story for ...soon because we have consumed all our resources ...
I think that's an excellent point!

So one of the very first chemists to work with oil said it was like burning money to burn oil, because it was such a useful and valuable molecule (which has certainly turned out to be true.

Random so-called 'quote' from an unnamed source. You?
tmiddles wrote:
I can totally see humanity if 500 years livid that we burned all the oil they could have used and reused.

Word salad. Try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;
You are a talented teach Marcus! This could be a children's book.

Photons aren't intelligent. Neither is the Moon or the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. I'm not interested in photons
DODGE!

Not a dodge at all. You are trying to redirect. That's a fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;
Nope. I'm not interested in photons ....
And by what means do the energy flow ??
Conduction, convection, and radiance.
Yes ITN, radiance. That would be a photon.

WRONG. It is the emission AND absorption of a photon. BOTH must happen for heat. Not all photons are the same, either.
tmiddles wrote:
I won't get into how conduction and convection with the dark side of the moon is a bit, well, you know.

Because you have no idea how it might be involved.
tmiddles wrote:
Marcus example is on point. Dodge away.

He is not on point. He made up a false description of photons traveling in an intelligent manner and talking with intelligent planets. Pure fiction.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 20:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
MarcusR wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons if what is being discussed is the flow of thermal energy. Let's just look at the thermal energy between the earth and the dark side of the moon, without any irrelevant distractions.

Oh, look. Thermal energy only flows from the warmer to the cooler.

Gee, that was easy.


.


And by what means do the energy flow ??


Conduction, convection, and radiance.


Probably not convection or conduction....... Or have you found a way for that to happen without a medium ????


The medium in question is the Moon and again the Earth. The convection is found in the atmospheres of both.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 20:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
MarcusR wrote:

Like I said, I'm not interested in distractions. The means is unimportant when you and I both are fully acknowledging that it happens.

Ergo, looking only at the flow of the thermal energy, because the thermal energy is all that concerns us, I see only a monotone decrease in thermal energy of the warmer and only a monotone increase of thermal energy in the cooler. I never see any increases in thermal energy in the warmer or any decreases in thermal energy in the cooler.
.


But you do accept the fact that a photon can be absorbed by a body, even though the emitting body is cooler than the absorbing body ?


No molecule will accept a photon that has less energy than the molecule already has.

Heat only flows one way: hot to cold. You cannot reduce entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 20:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons if what is being discussed is the flow of thermal energy. Let's just look at the thermal energy between the earth and the dark side of the moon, without any irrelevant distractions.

Oh, look. Thermal energy only flows from the warmer to the cooler.

Gee, that was easy.


.


I forgot the unit at the end of the story, it is eV, so the 10 um photon has an energy of 0.123984 eV or 1.9864424956421e-20 Ws.

I could convert that to Wh or kWh if you would like.. .

Oohhh, by the way. By what means do energy flow between the dark side of the moon and the earth ???


Conduction, convection, radiance. You have already asked this question. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 19-12-2019 20:46
19-12-2019 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
MarcusR wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons if what is being discussed is the flow of thermal energy. Let's just look at the thermal energy between the earth and the dark side of the moon, without any irrelevant distractions.

Oh, look. Thermal energy only flows from the warmer to the cooler.

Gee, that was easy.


.


And by what means do the energy flow ??


Conduction, convection, and radiance.


Probably not convection or conduction....... Or have you found a way for that to happen without a medium ????


The medium is the Moon itself, or the Earth itself.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote: And by what means do the energy flow ??

...looking only at the flow of the thermal energy, ...


Are you with ITN in believe conduction and convection are involved?

Is light a flow of thermal energy?

No. Electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. Redefinition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Oh and do you believe it's a "Net flow" of thermal energy?

There is no such thing as 'net flow' of thermal energy. You continue to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 20:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote:Well, they are besides temperature the same, so that photon will be absorbed by the 320K body, thus ~0.082 eV of energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body.

Nope. To understand exactly what goes on you have to take a quantum view. The photon is destroyed, yes. The energy that was the photon is no longer a photon. Any thermal energy is indistinguishable from any other thermal energy. In fact, you can take the photons out of the picture and simply look at levels of thermal energy in each body. At the moment you say the photon strikes the body, there is no ~0.082 eV surge in the body's amount of thermal energy. There will always remain a steady flow of thermal energy from warmer to cooler. As such, you do not get to use the phrase "energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body."

Ultimately there is no "net" in the flow. There are several good books on thermodynamics out there. Maybe you've seen a few yourself.

.



So in your opinion, what happens to the energy that the photon has, in this case ~0.082 eV ??

I got Borgnakke in my bookshelf btw. Not the latest since I took my M.Sc in 1995. Mail Claus and ask..


The energy of a photon is not measured in electron volts. There is no electron in photons.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:....you do not get to use the phrase "energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body."

Ultimately there is no "net" in the flow. There are several good books on thermodynamics out there. Maybe you've seen a few yourself.

So in your opinion, what happens to the energy that the photon has, in this case ~0.082 eV ??
Marcus I have an IMPOSSIBLE challenge for you. Get IBD to recommend ANY book on thermodynamics. He will, in spite of the quote above, dodge that to his dying day. As will ITN.


1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)+U
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t)
Stefan-Boltzmann law: r=C*e*t^4

You have denied each of these laws, though you can find them in books. You cannot use a book to deny physics or to define physics.
tmiddles wrote:
We do have wacko case law on that happens, in the opinion of this brand of denier, to a photon from a cooler object as it reaches a warmer one:
IBdaMann wrote: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.

You see? It's "uncertainty"! Gee, that was easy.

Let's make it a multiple choice for IBD, base on his own unique brand of physics. A photon from a cooler object does what when it reaches a warmer one.
a) deflect
b) do a back flip
c) take a selfie
d) interact in an uncertainty way

You just can't tell when you are being made fun of, can you?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
MarcusR wrote:
photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.


I have always wondered HOW a body can determine whether or not to absorb a i.e 10 um photon depending upon the temperature of the emitting body. I mean, if you do a simple calculation of the radiance of a body at 299K and 301K you will find they both emit at i.e 10 um.

How is a 300K body supposed to be able to choose to absorb a 10 um photon from the 299K body while not doing so with a photon of the exact same freq from a 301K body ????


No molecule will accept a photon that has less energy than the molecule already has.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 21:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:...a body at 299K and 301K you will find they both emit at i.e 10 um.

I've never been able to pin the "theorists" here, ITN/IBD, on "photon rejection" down on what DOES happen to the photon.

Who cares? It's not absorbed and converted into thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that, while we all recognize a true black body is only possible in theory, not only would a black body be an impossibility in the scenario in which photons are rejected based on the sources temperature, there would be a very strange rising reflectivity? maybe?

Trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law again, eh? You can't.
tmiddles wrote:
So as an objects temperature increase it would, according to this first law of wackos, reject all incoming radiance originating from objects below it's own temperature.

So what would this mean for an object cooling to equilibrium? We know, empirically that as an object approaches the temperature of it's environment cooling slows as expected. It's still hotter than it's environment but as it nears equilibrium the give and take on NET THERMAL TRANSFER means the change in temp slows down.


There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat only flows one way. You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
tmiddles wrote:
(Newton's law of cooling is that an object's temperature change rate is proportional to its own temperature and the temperature of the surrounding environment.)
But IF according to this first law of wackos the object is magickally unable to absorb any radiance from it's environment, then it's cooling would be entirely independent of it's environment and it's cooling would come crashing down into the ambient temperature with a thud.

Again, you are trying to equivocate electromagnetic energy and thermal energy. They are NOT the same.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 21:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I've never been able to pin the "theorists" here, ITN/IBD, on "photon rejection" down on what DOES happen to the photon.

Yes you have. Both Into the Night and I have explained to you exhaustively and repeatedly. I'm sure you remember ignoring every instance thereof and instead assigning bogus positions to us instead.

Have you given any thought to a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? Once again, since the issue is thermal energy, I'm not interested in getting bogged down in unneccessary distractions about other things, i.e. let's just focus on thermal energy. It has been five months now and I'm not the only one who is eager to take you up on your demonstration of a quantity of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer (even if there might be more thermal energy flowing from warmer to cooler). You have really piqued some interest and I hope you can find some time to share your repeatable example with us.

.


Well, we were discussing EMR, so your point is ???

Neither of you are. You are discussing thermal energy, and attempting to equivocate thermal energy with electromagnetic energy. They are NOT the same.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The energy in the photon changes form from electromagnetic energy to indistinguishable thermal energy ...
So what happens to the photon that comes to Earth from the dark side of the moon?
Who knows? Are you troubled about photons that serve no purpose in their life?
tmiddles wrote:
I know, so does Marcus, it's absorbed. What's your answer.
Not necessarily absorbed.
tmiddles wrote:
(also English) and on another note why don't you tighten up your signature a bit. It's annoyingly long.

Kettle logic.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 21:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
DODGE!
Ha! Did you have a question? Marcus presented a photon traveling from the dark side of the moon to Earth. Did you have a question about that or were you trying to change the subject.


A photon is not thermal energy. Redefinition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.
Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.

False equivalence fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Electromagnetic energy is not the same as thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 21:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote:Well, we were discussing EMR, so your point is ???

I wrote in English, so your problem is ???


Seriously.... What was you point with thermal energy and radiation ?
1. Any body above 0K emits EMR
2. A body can not choose what photons to absorb or not. If it absorbs at i.e 10 um it will absorb ANY photons at that frequency.
3. Just do a spectracalc for 299K, 300K and 301K. Get the point ???


Not all light is a single frequency. There is no such thing as a 'spectracalc'. Buzzword fallacy. No molecule will absorb a photon that has less energy than the molecule already has. Light is not thermal energy. False equivalence fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 21:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.
Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

Energy in the form of electromagnetic energy is not energy in the form of thermal energy.

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic energy.
Thermal radiation is not thermal energy.


.


W is W, and a Ws is a Ws....

I can accept that we all have different opinions, but when we are discussing physics we need to keep opinions out of it.

We need to keep random letters out of it too.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...PHOTONS come into play.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.
Which book would you recommend?
RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Forget the photons ...
No.

RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 22:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So one of the very first chemists to work with oil said it was like burning money to burn oil, because it was such a useful and valuable molecule (which has certainly turned out to be true.

Random so-called 'quote' from an unnamed source. You?



He recognized the importance of petroleum as a feedstock for petrochemicals. He is credited with a remark that burning petroleum as a fuel "would be akin to firing up a kitchen stove with bank notes." In 1905, Mendeleev was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
20-12-2019 09:26
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
]

W is W, and a Ws is a Ws....

I can accept that we all have different opinions, but when we are discussing physics we need to keep opinions out of it.

We need to keep random letters out of it too.[/quote]

Theese are all SI units with a rather clear connection to your comment regarding energy, wouldn't you say ?
20-12-2019 09:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
MarcusR wrote:
]

W is W, and a Ws is a Ws....

I can accept that we all have different opinions, but when we are discussing physics we need to keep opinions out of it.

We need to keep random letters out of it too.


Theese are all SI units with a rather clear connection to your comment regarding energy, wouldn't you say ?[/quote]

No.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-12-2019 10:10
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)


Not all light is a single frequency. There is no such thing as a 'spectracalc'. Buzzword fallacy. No molecule will absorb a photon that has less energy than the molecule already has. Light is not thermal energy. False equivalence fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.


"Not all light is a single frequency" ? Eeeeehhhh.... ??¿¿??

Spectracalc is a well known tool for calculating exactly what I said it would do. Look at the resulting curves and take a GOOD LOOK at the units of both the y-axis and the x-axis.....

The energy of a photon is given by its frequency and the unit in general used is eV but you could use J as well.

Energy is energy is energy.
20-12-2019 10:15
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.
Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.

False equivalence fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Electromagnetic energy is not the same as thermal energy.



A Joule, is a Joule is a Joule..........
20-12-2019 10:16
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
Into the Night wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I've never been able to pin the "theorists" here, ITN/IBD, on "photon rejection" down on what DOES happen to the photon.

Yes you have. Both Into the Night and I have explained to you exhaustively and repeatedly. I'm sure you remember ignoring every instance thereof and instead assigning bogus positions to us instead.

Have you given any thought to a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? Once again, since the issue is thermal energy, I'm not interested in getting bogged down in unneccessary distractions about other things, i.e. let's just focus on thermal energy. It has been five months now and I'm not the only one who is eager to take you up on your demonstration of a quantity of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer (even if there might be more thermal energy flowing from warmer to cooler). You have really piqued some interest and I hope you can find some time to share your repeatable example with us.

.


Well, we were discussing EMR, so your point is ???

Neither of you are. You are discussing thermal energy, and attempting to equivocate thermal energy with electromagnetic energy. They are NOT the same.



A Joule, is a Joule, is a Joule... ...
20-12-2019 11:27
James___
★★★★★
(3437)
MarcusR wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I've never been able to pin the "theorists" here, ITN/IBD, on "photon rejection" down on what DOES happen to the photon.

Yes you have. Both Into the Night and I have explained to you exhaustively and repeatedly. I'm sure you remember ignoring every instance thereof and instead assigning bogus positions to us instead.

Have you given any thought to a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? Once again, since the issue is thermal energy, I'm not interested in getting bogged down in unneccessary distractions about other things, i.e. let's just focus on thermal energy. It has been five months now and I'm not the only one who is eager to take you up on your demonstration of a quantity of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer (even if there might be more thermal energy flowing from warmer to cooler). You have really piqued some interest and I hope you can find some time to share your repeatable example with us.

.


Well, we were discussing EMR, so your point is ???

Neither of you are. You are discussing thermal energy, and attempting to equivocate thermal energy with electromagnetic energy. They are NOT the same.



A Joule, is a Joule, is a Joule... ...


Now you've confused him. Which joule are you talking about? A joule or a joule that is a joule?
Just trying to help you out itn

p.s., any emissions of photons is emr. And the thermal radiation from a black body is emr. I would hope you know this ITN. Aren't you always saying something like P = eбT^4A.
And you know that the atmosphere is KE = 3/2kT. But when incoming IR is refracted, what wavelengths does it become?
Edited on 20-12-2019 12:09
20-12-2019 12:00
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(314)
Instead of talking about the elephant in the room ( depletion problem) we talk about elephant fart( global warming). The future is doomed.
20-12-2019 13:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
James___ wrote:
... the thermal radiation from a black body is emr. I would hope you know this ITN.


I think maybe ITN actually doesn't know what radiance is.

Buy a heat lamp and set it up at home. See how very real thermal energy by way of radiance/photons is.
20-12-2019 16:01
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
best thing about monkeys is that they live on trees, and not with us, hehe.
20-12-2019 17:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:
Buy a heat lamp and set it up at home. See how very real thermal energy by way of radiance/photons is.

He's not the one insisting that photons are thermal energy.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-12-2019 17:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Xadoman wrote: The future is doomed.

The future might very well be a doom of universal heat death ... or the future might be a doom of the universe collapsing in on itself. Either way, humanity has no more than a few trillion years and the clock is ticking ... tick, tick, tick ...

Great point.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-12-2019 17:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
Amanbir Grewal wrote: best thing about monkeys is that they live on trees, and not with us, hehe.

I was thinking the same thing about polar bears, but I forgot the type of tree in which they live.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 4 of 9<<<23456>>>





Join the debate Energy and resource crisis in the future:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Future Of Energy Industry Is Magic Fusion Clean Coal, Not Renewables814-09-2020 23:54
The Secret Global Currency Reset Battle Between Various Groups & Future Revelations909-09-2020 00:03
Covid19's future1310-07-2020 02:08
Climate crisis requires wartime-style mobilisation, says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz126-11-2019 17:02
CNN: Wind farms of the future may be underwater202-05-2019 02:51
Articles
Appendix C - China's Environmental Crisis
Barack Obama: Securing Our Energy Future
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact