Remember me
▼ Content

Heat



Page 2 of 2<12
17-04-2019 22:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, convection and conduction are 2 different things. This is because they use different processes.
Have you thought about going to school for engineering? It might help. You contradicted yourself.
All that we can be sure of is that the total density of the atmosphere is the only important thing in the insolation factor that forces the Earth to raise to a certain MGT to achieve a balance of energy in to energy out.

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


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


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


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

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

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

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



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


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

It doesn't matter, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
17-04-2019 22:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
It is the flow of thermal energy. That is the standard definition. If someone knows that it really means nothing. After all, in our atmosphere of which we can't measure the temperature according to Into The Night and IBDaMann, we simply can't know if the Stefan-Boltzmann constant means anything.
Heat does have various definitions. One definition is based on the volume of gases. This might be because if we have one lone molecule, it will release no heat. But if we have 2 molecules or elements, then one can release heat content while the other absorbs it.
This gets into atomic physics. Chlorine which is Cl on the periodic elemental table is a gas. If "heat" or what is commonly referred to as background electromagnetic energy is passed from one element to the other, then background electromagnetic energy is heat.
But what if we get into plasma physics? That's actually considered the 5th state of matter. That's high energy particle physics. Highly excited ions. Are they heat?
Those would be the 2 most basic forms in which heat could be considered. Maybe Into The Night or IBDaMnann could clarify their comments about what a flow of heat is in specific terms. I know I'd like to understand what they mean.
Instead of them demeaning others maybe they can offer a clear and concise definition of what heat is? Is that too much to ask? We are all over 16, right?
At least I hope we are. For all I know ITN and IBDaMann still live at home with their parents.

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


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

James, you are doing things like Nightmare who somehow trips across a term and thinks that is the answer to God, the Universe and Everything.
You are making stuff up again, Wake.
Wake wrote:
You have to take a far more wider view.
Void argument fallacy.
Wake wrote:
There is NOTHING simple about the universe.
No one said it was.
Wake wrote:
I don't even believe that they recently took a "picture" of a black hole. At its distance using telescopes on opposite sides of the earth I do not believe that to be a wide enough base to be a real picture. This could just as well be light from a more distant star being bent into that "donut" shape from the gravity field of an intervening star. I would expect them to need a simultaneous picture from opposite sides of the Earth's orbit.

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

He has clearly said he doesn't want to learn.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-04-2019 22:57
17-04-2019 23:10
James___
★★★★☆
(1368)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
It is the flow of thermal energy. That is the standard definition. If someone knows that it really means nothing. After all, in our atmosphere of which we can't measure the temperature according to Into The Night and IBDaMann, we simply can't know if the Stefan-Boltzmann constant means anything.
Heat does have various definitions. One definition is based on the volume of gases. This might be because if we have one lone molecule, it will release no heat. But if we have 2 molecules or elements, then one can release heat content while the other absorbs it.
This gets into atomic physics. Chlorine which is Cl on the periodic elemental table is a gas. If "heat" or what is commonly referred to as background electromagnetic energy is passed from one element to the other, then background electromagnetic energy is heat.
But what if we get into plasma physics? That's actually considered the 5th state of matter. That's high energy particle physics. Highly excited ions. Are they heat?
Those would be the 2 most basic forms in which heat could be considered. Maybe Into The Night or IBDaMnann could clarify their comments about what a flow of heat is in specific terms. I know I'd like to understand what they mean.
Instead of them demeaning others maybe they can offer a clear and concise definition of what heat is? Is that too much to ask? We are all over 16, right?
At least I hope we are. For all I know ITN and IBDaMann still live at home with their parents.

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


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

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

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



Wake, you should try listening to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXHw_XB486k and meditating while you do. Then you might hear the Great Spirit. But since the only thing that "is" is what can be physically observed, that leaves the coffee in my cup and the cake on my plate. Those things are real.
What you miss on is that convection and conduction are the same thing until you consider application. When application is considered then they are 2 different things.
With temperature and heat, one definition is that a gaseous molecule will have temperature in accordance with KE = 3/2kT. And when you have a volume of molecules, ie., more than one then you have heat because their temperature will be an average between the 2 of them. But "heat" will flow between them so one will always have a higher temperature than the other.
This is very basic stuff. This is why you don't understand my experiment. I did suggest to a reporter for The Gaurdian to consider asking why scientists haven't done something to demonstrate their claims. At the moment a debate favours them because it's not about being right but merely presenting the best argument for something.
For as much as me and isn't disagree with things, there are some things that we do agree on. I won't bother to mention mismanagement of natural resources or ground water depletion. I mean those might be the main reasons why California has such severe wildfires but that's not what people want to hear. You won't hear me talking about those things not one bit, nope not me.
BTW, I am listening to Vesislava at the moment. She's Bulgarian but is currently working in Doha. She earns her living with her cello.
18-04-2019 00:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
It is the flow of thermal energy. That is the standard definition. If someone knows that it really means nothing. After all, in our atmosphere of which we can't measure the temperature according to Into The Night and IBDaMann, we simply can't know if the Stefan-Boltzmann constant means anything.
Heat does have various definitions. One definition is based on the volume of gases. This might be because if we have one lone molecule, it will release no heat. But if we have 2 molecules or elements, then one can release heat content while the other absorbs it.
This gets into atomic physics. Chlorine which is Cl on the periodic elemental table is a gas. If "heat" or what is commonly referred to as background electromagnetic energy is passed from one element to the other, then background electromagnetic energy is heat.
But what if we get into plasma physics? That's actually considered the 5th state of matter. That's high energy particle physics. Highly excited ions. Are they heat?
Those would be the 2 most basic forms in which heat could be considered. Maybe Into The Night or IBDaMnann could clarify their comments about what a flow of heat is in specific terms. I know I'd like to understand what they mean.
Instead of them demeaning others maybe they can offer a clear and concise definition of what heat is? Is that too much to ask? We are all over 16, right?
At least I hope we are. For all I know ITN and IBDaMann still live at home with their parents.

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


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

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

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



Wake, you should try listening to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXHw_XB486k and meditating while you do. Then you might hear the Great Spirit. But since the only thing that "is" is what can be physically observed, that leaves the coffee in my cup and the cake on my plate. Those things are real.
They are also irrelevant.
James___ wrote:
What you miss on is that convection and conduction are the same thing until you consider application. When application is considered then they are 2 different things.
No, they are two different things, regardless of 'application'.
James___ wrote:
With temperature and heat,
Heat has no temperature.
James___ wrote:
one definition is that a gaseous molecule will have temperature in accordance with KE = 3/2kT. And when you have a volume of molecules, ie., more than one then you have heat because their temperature will be an average between the 2 of them. But "heat" will flow between them so one will always have a higher temperature than the other.
Wrong equation. It does not describe heat.
James___ wrote:
This is very basic stuff.
No, you are being obtuse.
James___ wrote:
This is why you don't understand my experiment.
Talking about your vague magick experiment again?
James___ wrote:
I did suggest to a reporter for The Gaurdian to consider asking why scientists haven't done something to demonstrate their claims.

Lousy person to ask. The Guardian routinely denies science.
James___ wrote:
At the moment a debate favours them because it's not about being right but merely presenting the best argument for something.

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

No, California has wildfires because they don't manage their wilderness areas, thanks to environmentalists.
James___ wrote:
BTW, I am listening to Vesislava at the moment. She's Bulgarian but is currently working in Doha. She earns her living with her cello.

Irrelevant.


The Parrot Killer
18-04-2019 01:05
James___
★★★★☆
(1368)
https://youtu.be/gU5iLiEySyk


Or we could just go back to....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYKupOsaJmk
Edited on 18-04-2019 01:13
18-04-2019 01:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote: "rate of entropy changes"??? You haven't a clue what that means do you?
No, he doesn't. Then, neither do you.

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

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

Now we all know. You're welcome.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
18-04-2019 01:33
James___
★★★★☆
(1368)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote: "rate of entropy changes"??? You haven't a clue what that means do you?
No, he doesn't. Then, neither do you.

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

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

Now we all know. You're welcome.



This is sad. Like you said, all you and isn't have are words and definitions. Sad.
18-04-2019 03:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
It is the flow of thermal energy. That is the standard definition. If someone knows that it really means nothing. After all, in our atmosphere of which we can't measure the temperature according to Into The Night and IBDaMann, we simply can't know if the Stefan-Boltzmann constant means anything.
Heat does have various definitions. One definition is based on the volume of gases. This might be because if we have one lone molecule, it will release no heat. But if we have 2 molecules or elements, then one can release heat content while the other absorbs it.
This gets into atomic physics. Chlorine which is Cl on the periodic elemental table is a gas. If "heat" or what is commonly referred to as background electromagnetic energy is passed from one element to the other, then background electromagnetic energy is heat.
But what if we get into plasma physics? That's actually considered the 5th state of matter. That's high energy particle physics. Highly excited ions. Are they heat?
Those would be the 2 most basic forms in which heat could be considered. Maybe Into The Night or IBDaMnann could clarify their comments about what a flow of heat is in specific terms. I know I'd like to understand what they mean.
Instead of them demeaning others maybe they can offer a clear and concise definition of what heat is? Is that too much to ask? We are all over 16, right?
At least I hope we are. For all I know ITN and IBDaMann still live at home with their parents.

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


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

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

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



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


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

Again, your "experiment" of using a flask of gas and heating it and measuring the different speed of cooling offer not at all what you think it does. And it certainly bears not the slightest connection to reality.
18-04-2019 03:58
James___
★★★★☆
(1368)
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.
18-04-2019 05:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
It is the flow of thermal energy. That is the standard definition. If someone knows that it really means nothing. After all, in our atmosphere of which we can't measure the temperature according to Into The Night and IBDaMann, we simply can't know if the Stefan-Boltzmann constant means anything.
Heat does have various definitions. One definition is based on the volume of gases. This might be because if we have one lone molecule, it will release no heat. But if we have 2 molecules or elements, then one can release heat content while the other absorbs it.
This gets into atomic physics. Chlorine which is Cl on the periodic elemental table is a gas. If "heat" or what is commonly referred to as background electromagnetic energy is passed from one element to the other, then background electromagnetic energy is heat.
But what if we get into plasma physics? That's actually considered the 5th state of matter. That's high energy particle physics. Highly excited ions. Are they heat?
Those would be the 2 most basic forms in which heat could be considered. Maybe Into The Night or IBDaMnann could clarify their comments about what a flow of heat is in specific terms. I know I'd like to understand what they mean.
Instead of them demeaning others maybe they can offer a clear and concise definition of what heat is? Is that too much to ask? We are all over 16, right?
At least I hope we are. For all I know ITN and IBDaMann still live at home with their parents.

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


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

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

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



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


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

Heat has no temperature, Wake. It has no spectrum either.
Wake wrote:
Again, your "experiment" of using a flask of gas and heating it and measuring the different speed of cooling offer not at all what you think it does. And it certainly bears not the slightest connection to reality.

Glass jars filled with gas are real things, Wake. So is heating and cooling them.


The Parrot Killer
18-04-2019 05:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.

It is cool at night. CO2 influences nothing.


The Parrot Killer
18-04-2019 06:08
James___
★★★★☆
(1368)
Into the Night wrote:

It is cool at night. CO2 influences nothing.


That's what I've been saying. Finally someone has listened. At first I thought that was why your girlfriend called me. Maybe it's both?

Hmmm, ITN = CO2?
Edited on 18-04-2019 06:13
18-04-2019 07:59
James___
★★★★☆
(1368)
Okay, okay, for fun I'll go along with Wake's quantum physics. We can have some fun with this, right guys?
With spectroscopic analysis light emission can be observed such as with a prism. Different gases will emit different wavelengths at different amplitudes. Simple I know.
And with an increase in CO2 levels, what happens to the emitted wavelengths of light? e = hf, right? That's what spectroscopy is about. It observes specific wavelengths and amplitude of emissions. This could conceivably make everything about angstroms which would give a very precise amount of emissions.
This is where a flask/jar, etc. would matter. How does silica, ie., glass effect the wavelength of emitted electromagnetic radiation? How does it's wavelength to mass ratio change? This is what would make entropy known just to keep things simple. Wavelength is usually associated with amplitude such as in AM radio. That's analogue whereas FM varies the frequency. I know ya'all get this. And this is what Wake didn't understand. Glass or silica can act as a prism and the amount of energy passing through it will change the wavelength, colour, etc. of the light. And this in turn demonstrates a change in entropy.
Take some time to read the science behind this. I think it's pretty basic. Maybe I'm wrong and it's more advanced than what I think it is. Still, if anyone has a problem with commonly accepted definitions in science, that's on them.

If anyone missed it, spectroscopic analysis would allow for the emission from a container to be observed in a ridiculously small amount of energy. That should be enough to take the debate out of climate change.
Edited on 18-04-2019 08:22
18-04-2019 19:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
James___ wrote:
Okay, okay, for fun I'll go along with Wake's quantum physics. We can have some fun with this, right guys?
With spectroscopic analysis light emission can be observed such as with a prism. Different gases will emit different wavelengths at different amplitudes. Simple I know.

Different frequencies, not amplitude.
James___ wrote:
And with an increase in CO2 levels, what happens to the emitted wavelengths of light? e = hf, right? That's what spectroscopy is about. It observes specific wavelengths and amplitude of emissions. This could conceivably make everything about angstroms which would give a very precise amount of emissions.
You are ignoring blackbody radiance, which has nothing to do with this.
James___ wrote:
This is where a flask/jar, etc. would matter.
How does silica, ie., glass effect the wavelength of emitted electromagnetic radiation?
It doesn't.
James___ wrote:
How does it's wavelength to mass ratio change?

Try English. It works better.
James___ wrote:
This is what would make entropy known just to keep things simple.
Entropy is not frequency or amplitude.
James___ wrote:
Wavelength is usually associated with amplitude such as in AM radio.

WRONG. AM is a mode, not a frequency, wavelength, or amplitude. AM stations exist on many frequencies including from 550kHz to 123Mhz.
James___ wrote:
That's analogue whereas FM varies the frequency.

Both AM and FM are analog modes.
James___ wrote:
I know ya'all get this.
Apparently you don't.
James___ wrote:
And this is what Wake didn't understand.
He actually understands it better than you do.
James___ wrote:
Glass or silica can act as a prism and the amount of energy passing through it will change the wavelength, colour, etc. of the light.
WRONG. Prisms do NOT change the wavelength of light. They separate different wavelengths that are already there.
James___ wrote:
And this in turn demonstrates a change in entropy.
WRONG. Prisms have nothing to do with entropy.
James___ wrote:
Take some time to read the science behind this.
There is no science behind what you are describing.
James___ wrote:
I think it's pretty basic.
It is, but you have it utterly wrong.
James___ wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong and it's more advanced than what I think it is.
No, you're wrong and it's pretty simple to anyone that works in radio.
James___ wrote:
Still, if anyone has a problem with commonly accepted definitions in science, that's on them.
No, that's on YOU.
James___ wrote:
If anyone missed it, spectroscopic analysis would allow for the emission from a container to be observed in a ridiculously small amount of energy. That should be enough to take the debate out of climate change.

Spectroscopy has nothing to do with climate change.


The Parrot Killer
18-04-2019 22:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
By the way, for the record, the "rate of entropy changes" is the first derivative of the function for the absolute quantity of unusable energy at time t

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


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



Remind me why you are pretending to tell me what entropy is?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
19-04-2019 05:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
James___ wrote: Heat can be transferred 3 different ways, conduction, convection and radiation.


If we look at Orville Redenbacher's research, we find 3 different ways: Cornduction, Kernel Maizefication and Cobvection. The second one may go against the grain but if you lend me your ear I can show you how to make a great batch of popcorn.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
19-04-2019 20:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.


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

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

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

Time for you to jump up and down and tell us that we don't know physics while you so obviously are reading a 7th grade physics textbook and with each lesson saving the entire world.
Edited on 19-04-2019 20:41
19-04-2019 21:49
James___
★★★★☆
(1368)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.


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

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

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

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



I wish you guys could do better. It's disappointing when all it comes back to is word games. You guys ignore application. The difference as we've already discussed between convection and radiation is in the application of energy (heat) transfer.
An hvac/heat pump unit outside of someone's home comes to mind. The air being moved into their home heats or cools because of convection. A mixing of gases. With conduction, there is no mixing happening. The transfer of energy (heat) is between 2 things that will not mix. Application.
With a physics experiment, how energy (heat) is emitted from a volume of gases depends on what that individual wants. A scientist could use what's available to them or if they want, they could purchase new equipment for such an experiment. For people to define the parameters of an experiment that they are not doing is placing their conditions on other people.
I kind of wish you guys understood what you're saying.
With NotDaMann, it's not really about entropy. If CO2 allows for heat to be trapped then if container "A" has 400 ppm of CO2 and container "B" has 600 ppm, exposing both to the same amount of joules/watts should show a significant increase in temperature of container "B". This is because it would trap more heat.
With Wake, a scientist could shield the inside of a container with reflective material. Then said scientist could allow for a controlled discharge of heat depending on how they wish to observe the emissions from the container.
They could use a magnifying glass concept for all that mattered to focus the emissions. Or if they wanted, they could use an actual prism and then use the different wavelengths to quantify the emissions from that container.
This last one would mean that they're basically converting electromagnetic radiation into different colours of light. At the same time they could monitor the vibrations in a crystal. This has been done when searching for gravity waves. In that type of testing, that's possibly the most sensitive and thus accurate method for determining the resistance of any given field.
I kind of doubt you guys have read about that or how scientists try to understand how neutrinos work. There are some and I'm kind of in the camp that neutrinos are dark matter. It's just that when neutrinos are observed, from their perspective it's a planet or the Moon that we're seeing.
Edited on 19-04-2019 21:50
19-04-2019 21:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.


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

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

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

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



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


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

And now we are being TOLD BY YOU that you have read about neutrinos. Hey stupid - I actually worked on accelerators. What in God's name have you ever done in your entire life except play these sorts of games?
19-04-2019 22:16
James___
★★★★☆
(1368)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.


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

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

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

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



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


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

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



You sound like ITN and IBDaMann. I don't care to be ya'alls friend. What you don't understand is that I have things that I am pursuing on my own. At the moment what other people think doesn't matter because I am doing the work and not them.
Even with what you said, it's doubtful that you guys are well versed in physics.
It's interesting that you would compare my experiment to Schroedinger's Cat when in reality Maxwell's Demon might be closer to the truth.
19-04-2019 22:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.


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

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

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

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



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


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

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



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


Don't hand out any more of your stupid shit. What have you done? What jobs have you held?
19-04-2019 22:47
James___
★★★★☆
(1368)
Wake wrote:


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



If you guys aren't familiar with physics, that's on you. With me, my main concern is something that just doesn't matter to you guys. That's something for me to understand.
19-04-2019 22:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:


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



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


In other words you're in high school and have never done anything. Thanks for all the fish.
19-04-2019 22:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.


You get very tiresome. A "jar" is for holding food and generally has a wide neck but not necessarily. A "flask" is a GLASS laboratory sample holder that usually but not necessarily have a narrow neck.
Irrelevant, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Perhaps you can explain to us why you would rather use a food container that BTW could be made of crockery rather than a laboratory container?
Crockery is used in laboratories, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Why do you feel the need to displace gross ignorance at every turn?
Why do you feel you need to make so much stuff up?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-04-2019 23:19
19-04-2019 23:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.


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

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

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

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



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

Maybe you ought to stop playing word games. Nah. That would be against your religion.
James___ wrote:
You guys ignore application. The difference as we've already discussed between convection and radiation is in the application of energy (heat) transfer.

Heat is not energy transfer. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.
James___ wrote:
An hvac/heat pump unit outside of someone's home comes to mind. The air being moved into their home heats or cools because of convection.

No, it's because of the pump.
James___ wrote:
A mixing of gases.

A heat pump does not mix gases.
James___ wrote:
With conduction, there is no mixing happening.

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

Heat is not the transfer of energy. It is the flow of thermal energy.
James___ wrote:
Application.

No, religion.
James___ wrote:
With a physics experiment, how energy (heat)

Heat is not energy.
James___ wrote:
is emitted from a volume of gases depends on what that individual wants.

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

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

If there is no experiment, there are no parameters to define. Whether other people have conditions placed upon them by another is irrelevant.
James___ wrote:
I kind of wish you guys understood what you're saying.

We do. You don't.
James___ wrote:
With NotDaMann, it's not really about entropy.

He doesn't deny entropy. You do.
James___ wrote:
If CO2 allows for heat to be trapped

You cannot trap heat.
James___ wrote:
then if container "A" has 400 ppm of CO2 and container "B" has 600 ppm, exposing both to the same amount of joules/watts should show a significant increase in temperature of container "B". This is because it would trap more heat.

You cannot trap heat.
James___ wrote:
With Wake, a scientist could shield the inside of a container with reflective material.

You mean like a Thermos bottle? You don't need a scientist for that. You can buy one at Walmart.
James___ wrote:
Then said scientist could allow for a controlled discharge of heat depending on how they wish to observe the emissions from the container.

Heat isn't 'charged'. There is no 'discharge'.
James___ wrote:
They could use a magnifying glass concept for all that mattered to focus the emissions. Or if they wanted, they could use an actual prism and then use the different wavelengths to quantify the emissions from that container.

Different frequencies is not a quantity.
James___ wrote:
This last one would mean that they're basically converting electromagnetic radiation into different colours of light.

WRONG. Any light is electromagnetic energy, regardless of color. You can't convert electromagnetic energy into electromagnetic energy.
James___ wrote:
At the same time they could monitor the vibrations in a crystal.

I like rock salt. Ice can be fun as well.
James___ wrote:
This has been done when searching for gravity waves.

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

Nope. Crystals don't respond to just any field.
James___ wrote:
I kind of doubt you guys have read about that or how scientists try to understand how neutrinos work.

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

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

They don't have eyes. The have no perspective.


The Parrot Killer
19-04-2019 23:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.


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

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

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

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



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


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

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

I don't believe you, Wake. I don't think you could fix a single thing on your car.


The Parrot Killer
19-04-2019 23:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.


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

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

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

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



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


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

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



You sound like ITN and IBDaMann.

Nah. He's almost as screwed up as you are.
James___ wrote:
I don't care to be ya'alls friend.

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

Is she pretty?
James___ wrote:
At the moment what other people think doesn't matter because I am doing the work and not them.
What work is that? Denying physics and telling everyone else they don't know physics?
James___ wrote:
Even with what you said, it's doubtful that you guys are well versed in physics.
Q.E.D.
James___ wrote:
It's interesting that you would compare my experiment to Schroedinger's Cat when in reality Maxwell's Demon might be closer to the truth.

No one even mentioned either one. You are hallucinating again.


The Parrot Killer
19-04-2019 23:17
James___
★★★★☆
(1368)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:


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



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


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



Wake,
I'm going to give you and ITN a do over. You guys can do better. I know you guys have it in you to do better. I believe in you. You can do this.
I mean really, https://www.iter.org/ and https://home.cern/ are on a collision course! How can we keep this catastrophe from happening?
19-04-2019 23:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, it's pathetic when you say we'll have to do things the old fashioned way and measure with either a thermometer or spectroscopy. And you go from a jar to a flask.
It's obvious that you guys haven't spent much time studying physics. If so then it wouldn't be a radical thought to see if CO2 could influence atmospheric gases ability to radiate heat. That's why it's supposed to cool at night.


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

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

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

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



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


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

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



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


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

You can't control him, Wake. He's going to hand out stupid shit. That's what he does.
Wake wrote:
What have you done? What jobs have you held?

It doesn't matter, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
19-04-2019 23:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:


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



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

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
19-04-2019 23:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:


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



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


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



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

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


The Parrot Killer
19-04-2019 23:53
James___
★★★★☆
(1368)
Into the Night wrote:

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



@Wake and ITN,
Can't you guys do better? I've been trying to think of ways to help you guys but came up with nothing. You simply gave me nothing to work with. I'll give you both a do over. Maybe you can come up with something that is offensive?
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Heat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
Ocean heat sources419-04-2019 23:21
What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?218-04-2019 20:57
Record Australian heat shows soaring cost of climate change126-02-2019 18:16
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact