How a cooler body heats a warmer body.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > How a cooler body heats a warmer body. > Page 2

Page 2 of 3

17-05-2020 22:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ...If our respective definitions of "thermal energy" were of any import, you could have clarified how that matters regarding the three points I laid out, ... I believe I have this correct: IBdaMann candidly admits he doesn't know what "thermal energy" actually is but doesn't think of it as kinetic gyrations or as subatmoic radiance. But can define it based on it's behavior so it doesn't matter. Tmiddles is thoroughly uncreative and starts with the dictionary and textbooks which define "thermal energy" as the energy of "heat". This is a non starter for IBdaMann who does not believe in the word heat. Tmiddles sort of imagines atoms gyrating around but that's really based on his experience making popcorn. He would have to admit that he doesn't really know what thermal energy is in matter either. So I will accept YOUR definition here for "thermal energy" but you can't pretend that other folks don't have different definitions. I have no problem with the following: Whatever "thermal energy" is you can separate out radiance through space from it (if you were including it). So where this is the typical definition: We can just stick with the top two. They have the three separate already. Separating radiance out and considering it to be a separate thing makes sense anyway because it is unique.
17-05-2020 22:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: The ground level (bottom of the atmosphere) of Venus is estimated at 467C. So that is 412 degrees hotter than the sun light shining on Venus. You are in denial of the effect of atmospheric pressure. The bottom of any atmosphere will be measure a warmer temperature due to the pressure thus generated by the planet's gravity. Use Mercury instead unless you wish to incorporate the Ideal Gas Law into your math. Pressure is a factor in temperature measurement of a fluid. At room temperature you can make water boil until it freezes. You are arguing a parlor trick. The official answer: You are wrong. 20) Science Denial e) Science Malpractice 3) Critical Omission i) Ignoring the Ideal Gas Law, especially when discussing Venus . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
18-05-2020 01:00
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The ground level (bottom of the atmosphere) of Venus is estimated at 467C. So that is 412 degrees hotter than the sun light shining on Venus. You are in denial of the effect of atmospheric pressure. Funny I don't recall denying it. In fact I offered no explanation above as to why or how the bottom of the atmosphere on Venus is high, simply pointing out that it is. Does atmospheric pressure create energy? Is it a source of energy like the sun? I think it's often said by you guys in objecting to the concept that something could increase temperature that: "you cannot create energy out of nothing." Right?
18-05-2020 02:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ...If our respective definitions of "thermal energy" were of any import, you could have clarified how that matters regarding the three points I laid out, ... I believe I have this correct: No. You still have it wrong. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann candidly admits he doesn't know what "thermal energy" actually is but doesn't think of it as kinetic gyrations or as subatmoic radiance. But can define it based on it's behavior so it doesn't matter. There is no such thing as 'subatomic radiance'. RQAA. Mantra 22..29... tmiddles wrote: Tmiddles is thoroughly uncreative and starts with the dictionary and textbooks which define "thermal energy" as the energy of "heat". Heat is not energy. Mantras 4e...10b... tmiddles wrote: This is a non starter for IBdaMann who does not believe in the word heat. Lie. Mantra 30. tmiddles wrote: Tmiddles sort of imagines atoms gyrating around but that's really based on his experience making popcorn. He would have to admit that he doesn't really know what thermal energy is in matter either. Mantras 10b...29...6... tmiddles wrote: So I will accept YOUR definition here for "thermal energy" but you can't pretend that other folks don't have different definitions. Lie. Mantras 30...31...4c... tmiddles wrote: I have no problem with the following: Whatever "thermal energy" is you can separate out radiance through space from it (if you were including it). Light is not thermal energy or heat. Mantras 20g...39f... tmiddles wrote: So where this is the typical definition: ...deleted Holy Link...Mantras 4a...4b... [quote]tmiddles wrote: Separating radiance out and considering it to be a separate thing makes sense anyway because it is unique. Mantras 20g...22e...39f... No arguments presented. Invalid proof. False authority fallacy. Denial of science. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-05-2020 02:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The ground level (bottom of the atmosphere) of Venus is estimated at 467C. So that is 412 degrees hotter than the sun light shining on Venus. You are in denial of the effect of atmospheric pressure. Funny I don't recall denying it. You deny it all the time. tmiddles wrote: In fact I offered no explanation above as to why or how the bottom of the atmosphere on Venus is high, simply pointing out that it is. Lie. You offered an explanation for a single high temperature reading on Venus. tmiddles wrote: Does atmospheric pressure create energy? Is it a source of energy like the sun? Mantra 29...20n... tmiddles wrote: I think it's often said by you guys in objecting to the concept that something could increase temperature that: "you cannot create energy out of nothing." Right? Mantras 29...20a1...20e3...20n...39o... No argument presented. Conflation. Denial of science. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

18-05-2020 07:55
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are in denial of the effect of atmospheric pressure. Funny I don't recall denying it. You deny it all the time.. nope Quote me Into the Night wrote: You offered an explanation for a single high temperature reading on Venus. nope again Quote me Stop fabricating things ITN and quote it if you got it.
18-05-2020 10:57
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The ground level (bottom of the atmosphere) of Venus is estimated at 467C. So that is 412 degrees hotter than the sun light shining on Venus. You are in denial of the effect of atmospheric pressure. Funny I don't recall denying it. In fact I offered no explanation above as to why or how the bottom of the atmosphere on Venus is high, simply pointing out that it is. Does atmospheric pressure create energy? Is it a source of energy like the sun? I think it's often said by you guys in objecting to the concept that something could increase temperature that: "you cannot create energy out of nothing." Right? You base your faith, on what was it, 9 Russian probes, that lasted about an hour each, before burning up? Very small, brief, data set. heat, is what destroys most electronics. Most electronic components don't perform as expected, when outside their environmental limits. You put to heavy a confidence on what is unreliable data. Of course, it's sufficient for silly arguments. A small, brief, glimpse, isn't really enough, to define an entire planet. Suppose we dropped a similar probe down into an active volcano. Would the data collected, accurately define the entire planet earth?
18-05-2020 11:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:Does atmospheric pressure create energy? The question you aren't considering is whether atmospheric pressure is a factor in the temperature of fluids (liquids and gases). The answer is "absolutely." You are the one insisting on talking about the temperature of the atmosphere (fluid) of Venus ... yet who refuses to include the PRESSURE factor ... thereby earning summary dismissal of your arguments. In fact, the pressure and temperature of the air surrounding the man in a cool room and the intense pressure at the bottom of Venus' atmosphere are the answers in both of those cases. You are familiar with the states of matter I presume, i.e. solid, liquid and gas? (ignore plasma for the moment). Can I, at room temperature, without any heat, boil water until it freezes? I absolutely can, and therein lies the answer to some of your questions. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
18-05-2020 12:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 36e...36e...30...39k... No argument presented. Denial of self argument (paradox). 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-05-2020 00:00
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 36e...36e...30...39k... No argument presented. Denial of self argument (paradox). And yet you are a parrot and at the same time a parrot killer. I just love evil. It's what makes the world go round
19-05-2020 05:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Does atmospheric pressure create energy? The question you aren't considering .... therein lies the answer to some of your questions. You and ITN have made false claims for 5 years. YOU TWO have made those claims, not me. The direct measurements of VENUS being way way way hotter than the radiance for the Sun allows for in your physics debunks you. My debunking you on the 1st LTD: link My debunking you on Planck's Law: link IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: What we're concerned with though is the transmission or otherwise of radiation through the atmosphere. What concerns us is accounting for additional energy. The 1st LoT is very clear; energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This rule applies always, all throughout the universe. If someone claims that "greenhouse gas" increases temperature then *we need to account for this additional energy that "greenhouse gas" provides.* So how was the "additional energy" created on Venus? IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote:I do not know how greenhouse gases intercepting radiation from the surface thereby leading to less radiation escaping to space would violate Planck's law. Irrespective of this not actually happening, you nonetheless claim that: 1. Earth's atmospheric temperature increases 2. Earth's atmospheric radiance decreases That is a direct violation of Planck's Law. You cannot resolve this through any convolution of radiation of any individual photons. link Of course what we have PROVEN on Venus is that the radiance is not higher but the temperature is a LOT higher. More basic than that even we have you both denying that an atmosphere could possible, regardless of it's composition, increase the temperature at all: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Both the Earth and Venus are warmer because they have atmospheres. Nope. An atmosphere does not warm a planet. It is not a source of energy. IBdaMann wrote: James__, you know full well that the earth is demonstrably COOLER because it has an atmosphere. link "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
19-05-2020 06:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 5...30...7...25g...20a1...4a...20v...4a...20w6...25c...20a1...29...4a...20n...7...39j...20a2...20a1...16c...4a...29...39g... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Argument by repetition 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-05-2020 10:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	The Venus probe data would be preliminary at best, not strong, repeated observation. The probes don't survive long enough to consider the data stable, and reliable. Doesn't a lot of stuff entering Earth's atmosphere get really, really hot, usually burn up? They put special made tiles on the Space Shuttles, to displace the heat. They often fell off, had to replace quite a few, every mission. You keep pointing at how much denser the Venus atmosphere, compared to Earth, as proof of global warming. Denser atmosphere, greater friction on entry, way more heat generated. Those probes would have need time to cool down, normalize, stabilize. They don't get a chance, since they are melting, and soon to be completely failed/destroyed. They were fortunate to get any data at all, no way to tell how useful any of it was, just better than nothing at all. Maybe they should send some ice core samples on the next one...
19-05-2020 11:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: The Venus probe data ...don't survive long enough to consider the data stable, and reliable. ... Well that is totally made up, by you, but "enough" for what exactly Harvey? Do you think that Venus is actually covered in ICE and the probes had the amazing bad luck of landing in active volcano? This is the simple question: Do we know that Venus is really really hot on the ground? Yes or No HarveyH55 wrote:Those probes would have need time to cool down, normalize, stabilize. They don't get a chance, since they are melting,... Why are they melting? Because it is really really hot on the ground? And incidentally here is just what the Russians did: A total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period. 117 days to reach Venus 1970 Venera 7 lasted 23 minutes on th surface 1972 Venera 8 50 minutes, 11 seconds 1975 Venera 9 53 minutes 1975 Venera 10 65 minutes 1978 Venera 11 95 minutes 1978 Venera 12 110 minutes 1982 Venera 13 127 minutes 1983 Venera 14 The lander functioned for at least 57 minutes (the planned design life was 32 minutes) in an environment with a temperature of 465 °C (869 °F) and a pressure of 94 Earth atmospheres (9.5 MPa). 1985 Venera 15, 16 1985 not landing Venus is not so close to the sun that we would expect to find a ground level that was extremely hot. We do. So are we able to talk about that or must deniers pretend not to know this simple disparity exists. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 19-05-2020 11:26
19-05-2020 18:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: Do you think that Venus is actually covered in ICE and the probes had the amazing bad luck of landing in active volcano? You had to know that it would only be a matter of time until ICE heard about aliens on Venus. . Attached image: Edited on 19-05-2020 18:50

19-05-2020 19:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: This is the simple question: Do we know that Venus is really really hot on the ground? Yes or No Boy, that question is clear! You're really pinning him down on a specific temperature, aren't you? He could answer either "yes" or "no" and be completely correct, and you could nonetheless mock his answer as being crazy. You just couldn't bring yourself to define the key elements of your question, could you? You're still treating the "surface" as though it is of uniform temperature ... and that you KNOW that it is ... because of your omniscience, of course. I'm curious, what if Harvey considers "really really hot" to be a specific value? Hmmm? It's not possible to know if any part of the bottom of Venus' atmosphere is that temperature so it's looking like you are tying his hands and forcing an answer of "No." That seems like pretty much a waste of everyone's time. Hey, you're omniscient, I might as well ask you. What is the temperature at the bottom of Venus' atmosphere vs. at the top of the atmosphere, both on the side facing the sun and the nighttime side? It's the same all around, right? You know this, right? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
19-05-2020 20:56
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: The Venus probe data ...don't survive long enough to consider the data stable, and reliable. ... Well that is totally made up, by you, but "enough" for what exactly Harvey? Do you think that Venus is actually covered in ICE and the probes had the amazing bad luck of landing in active volcano? This is the simple question: Do we know that Venus is really really hot on the ground? Yes or No HarveyH55 wrote:Those probes would have need time to cool down, normalize, stabilize. They don't get a chance, since they are melting,... Why are they melting? Because it is really really hot on the ground? And incidentally here is just what the Russians did: A total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period. 117 days to reach Venus 1970 Venera 7 lasted 23 minutes on th surface 1972 Venera 8 50 minutes, 11 seconds 1975 Venera 9 53 minutes 1975 Venera 10 65 minutes 1978 Venera 11 95 minutes 1978 Venera 12 110 minutes 1982 Venera 13 127 minutes 1983 Venera 14 The lander functioned for at least 57 minutes (the planned design life was 32 minutes) in an environment with a temperature of 465 °C (869 °F) and a pressure of 94 Earth atmospheres (9.5 MPa). 1985 Venera 15, 16 1985 not landing Venus is not so close to the sun that we would expect to find a ground level that was extremely hot. We do. So are we able to talk about that or must deniers pretend not to know this simple disparity exists. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN I don't know the temperature of Venus, just skeptical of the data sent back by the probes. Living in Central Florida, space news is pretty much a weekly thing, even without a launch. Space X is sending up people on the 27th, sort of a big deal. Everything entering our atmosphere gets really hot, maybe hotter than the surface of Venus. You keep saying how much denser the Venus atmosphere is, so I'd have to guess that those probes got even hotter on the way down. The probe would need some time to cool off, before any readings would be valid. How would you know if you are measuring heat coming off the probe, or the surface of Venus? I work with electronics, as a hobby, and have for decades. Heat, is never your friend. Figuring out which end of the soldering iron, is a pretty quick lesson. Some parts can be destroyed, if you apply too much heat, too long. Most parts heat a little, when in operation. Some heat a lot, and you have to deal with it, heatsinks, active cooling (fan). Most parts have an operating range, and tolerance, before the burn up. That's all challenging enough, most of the time. But to build something, you know is going to be exposed to high temperature, environmental conditions. I find it amazing they were able to get photos and data at all. Accurate, precise data... Think that might be stretching it a little. Only the Russians sending probes? My entire life, the American government propaganda, has been tell me, that Russians often lie...
19-05-2020 21:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25g...25c...25d...25e...29... It is not possible to measure the temperature of a planet with one thermometer. No argument presented. Denial of mathematics. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-05-2020 11:35
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	keepit wrote: Jack Fou, As i understand it from wikipedia the temp of an object determines how much of a given wavelength is emitted but that all wavelengths are emitted, albeit in small quantities (brightness) for some wavelengths. Quote from Wiki, "Plank radiation is said to be thermal radiation, such that the higher the temp of a body, the more radiation it emits at every wavelength." If you look at the formula for example for Planck's law you'll find that the radiative power at higher energies/frequencies drops off pretty sharply after the peak. However, mathematically, it never becomes exactly zero, just increasingly close to zero. For higher energies it gets very, very close to zero. But never exactly zero. So yes, in that sense it is correct. However, since the emissive power at higher frequencies drops off so sharply beyond the peak frequency, you'd be hard pressed to actually detect and measure for example γ-photons in the thermal radiation spectrum of a room temperature object. When you wrote that: keepit wrote: That radiation comes off in all wavelengths regardless of the temperature of the cooler body. That was phrased a bit ambiguously, hence me being nitpicky about it. To make things even more complicated, any real object will deviate at least slightly and sometimes drastically from an ideal blackbody. Individual atoms or molecules can only absorb and emit at specific frequencies of radiation which correspond to transitions between energy levels within the atom/molecule. That's why absorption and emission spectra of (dilute) gases look nothing like blackbody radiation spectra. If you have macroscopically large solid objects, these absorption lines become so broad as to effectively form a continuous spectrum but there might still be peaks and dips in intensity here and there across the spectrum depending on the composition of the object.
20-05-2020 14:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	JackFou wrote: keepit wrote: Jack Fou, As i understand it from wikipedia the temp of an object determines how much of a given wavelength is emitted but that all wavelengths are emitted, albeit in small quantities (brightness) for some wavelengths. Quote from Wiki, "Plank radiation is said to be thermal radiation, such that the higher the temp of a body, the more radiation it emits at every wavelength." If you look at the formula for example for Planck's law you'll find that the radiative power at higher energies/frequencies drops off pretty sharply after the peak. However, mathematically, it never becomes exactly zero, just increasingly close to zero. For higher energies it gets very, very close to zero. But never exactly zero. So yes, in that sense it is correct. Mantra 20v... JackFou wrote: However, since the emissive power at higher frequencies drops off so sharply beyond the peak frequency, you'd be hard pressed to actually detect and measure for example γ-photons in the thermal radiation spectrum of a room temperature object. Mantra 20x...31...20e2... JackFou wrote: When you wrote that: keepit wrote: That radiation comes off in all wavelengths regardless of the temperature of the cooler body. That was phrased a bit ambiguously, hence me being nitpicky about it. To make things even more complicated, any real object will deviate at least slightly and sometimes drastically from an ideal blackbody. Individual atoms or molecules can only absorb and emit at specific frequencies of radiation which correspond to transitions between energy levels within the atom/molecule. That's why absorption and emission spectra of (dilute) gases look nothing like blackbody radiation spectra. If you have macroscopically large solid objects, these absorption lines become so broad as to effectively form a continuous spectrum but there might still be peaks and dips in intensity here and there across the spectrum depending on the composition of the object. Mantra 20q2...20q1...20b3... No argument presented. Denial of science. Buzzword fallacies. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-05-2020 03:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: You just couldn't bring yourself to define the key elements of your question, could you? I'm not your Dad or your professor IBD. Stand up and think for yourself. ITN believes it: Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus. from his DATA MINE Do you agree with him? You know my position is that I consider the international effort to be extremely competent and I don't doubt the ~460C value they determined for the ground level of Venus. HarveyH55 wrote: I don't know the temperature of Venus, ... The probe would need some time to cool off, before any readings would be valid. ... So as far as your concerned the ground level temp on Venus could be near freezing? Also you have manufactured a condition there. The thermo couple like the one used on the Venera probe is designed for conditions of 1000C. So no, it does not need time to "cool off". There was no "cooling off" on Venus. Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of a planet with one thermometer. How many do you need to measure to the nearest 100 degrees?
21-05-2020 04:29
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You just couldn't bring yourself to define the key elements of your question, could you? I'm not your Dad or your professor IBD. Stand up and think for yourself. ITN believes it: Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus. from his DATA MINE Do you agree with him? You know my position is that I consider the international effort to be extremely competent and I don't doubt the ~460C value they determined for the ground level of Venus. HarveyH55 wrote: I don't know the temperature of Venus, ... The probe would need some time to cool off, before any readings would be valid. ... So as far as your concerned the ground level temp on Venus could be near freezing? Also you have manufactured a condition there. The thermo couple like the one used on the Venera probe is designed for conditions of 1000C. So no, it does not need time to "cool off". There was no "cooling off" on Venus. Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of a planet with one thermometer. How many do you need to measure to the nearest 100 degrees? Now, it's pretty obvious you don't know what you are talking about, and clearly misrepresenting. The sensor might be good 1000C, but what of the electronics to read it? You're the only one bringing up ice on the surface, idiot's argument. Repeat the same failed argument, isn't so intelligent. A pattern you repeat often. Upon entry, and as the probe travels through Venus's dense atmosphere, friction is going to generate an incredible amount of heat. Would the temperature be measuring heat from the probe's hull, or the planet surface? The probe is going to be much hotter than the surface, initially. Guess, that made sense, and why you deflect with the ice insanity.
21-05-2020 08:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:The sensor might be good 1000C, but what of the electronics to read it? You're the only one bringing up ice on the surface, idiot's argument. Not at all Harvey. If ITN/IBD were right about physics it would be frozen. You see the equilibrium temp of Venus is estimated to be 227K, that is -46C (the reason it's colder than Earth equilibrium temp is Venus is far more reflective, a higher albedo). So wondering if Venus is actually frozen instead of hot enough to melt lead at midnight is not a silly question here at all. You are alleging that all of the engineers involved in the project are incompetent, liars or both. Here is the chart of data for just one Venera probe, 8: See the dotted line? That is a 95% confidence interval for the measurement (and yes that would include friction from reentry or anything else being factored out). Now the probe only sent data for 15 minutes once landed as you can see. But do you see the probe "cooling off" in that time? And there are 4 different temperature sensors. The question we have is very simple though: Is it really hot on Venus? That's it in a nutshell: ITN and IBD have lied for 5 years claiming an atmosphere cannot make a planet hotter (on the ground of course). Venus proves them wrong. Earth does too but not in such dramatic style. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
21-05-2020 09:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:You know my position is that I consider the international effort to be extremely competent and I don't doubt the ~460C value they determined for the ground level of Venus. ... and you are a gullible idiot. If it brings you comfort to believe that then great. I don't want to take that away from you. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of a planet with one thermometer. How many do you need to measure to the nearest 100 degrees? Into the Night is not your father and he's not your professor. Go learn statistics and learn to calculate what you need to have. Moron. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
21-05-2020 09:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You just couldn't bring yourself to define the key elements of your question, could you? I'm not your Dad or your professor IBD. Stand up and think for yourself. ITN believes it: Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus. from his DATA MINE I never stated any actual temperature for Venus. The temperature of Venus is unknown. Mantra 30...25g... tmiddles wrote: Do you agree with him? Irrelevant. Mantra 30... tmiddles wrote: You know my position is that I consider the international effort to be extremely competent and I don't doubt the ~460C value they determined for the ground level of Venus. Mantra 25g...25c... One thermometer does not measure the temperature of a planet or even the surface of a planet. tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I don't know the temperature of Venus, ... The probe would need some time to cool off, before any readings would be valid. ... So as far as your concerned the ground level temp on Venus could be near freezing? Also you have manufactured a condition there. The thermo couple like the one used on the Venera probe is designed for conditions of 1000C. So no, it does not need time to "cool off". There was no "cooling off" on Venus. While true, thermocouples are notoriously sensitive to mechanical damage, corrosive environments (such as sulfuric acid) and even sudden temperature changes, such as when landing a spacecraft through the clouds of Venus and landing on a surface. A better indication is actually from the probe's camera, showing a dull reddish glow emanating from the surface. It is, however, only one point on the entire planet. It is not the temperature of the entire planet or even it's entire surface. Mantra 25c. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of a planet with one thermometer. How many do you need to measure to the nearest 100 degrees? RQAA. Mantra 29. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-05-2020 09:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 30...25g...25g...lie...30...25c...30...25g...30...7...20a2...20n...25g...31...20a2...20n...39j... No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-05-2020 12:40
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...Go learn statistics and learn to calculate what you need to have.... Now see I don't think doing everything over again (particularly when you lack the ability, true of you and I both) is a requirement to consider and debate scientific issues. You have not advanced any argument as to why it is that you believe the engineers and scientists that studied Venus got it wrong. Something about the instruments being damaged at some point? However you did say you didn't think they were lying (as they lacked any motive in the 70s and 80s to do so). You can call me gullible for taking, as a default position and a starting point for discussion, the data provided by those who have done the work already. I don't agree but whatever. This is how engineering and scientific progress has always been engaged. You do NOT question everything unless you have you life to waste away. You must be selective. When Josef Stefan deduced the 4th power of absolute temperature for radiance in 1879 he used John Tyndall's research to do it. He "took it on faith" you might say. He did not waste his time repeating the experiments. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus. from his DATA MINE I never stated any actual temperature for Venus. That's fine with me. When you say it's "unknown" you mean the exact value correct? You do recognize that the temp (at the ground level) is very high though yes? That's all we need to proceed with a real debate. I'm simply saying that the ground level of Venus is considerably hotter than the equilibrium temperature of the planet. That's all. Do you not agree that's a very reasonable conclusion and that we can debate based upon it being accepted as true? Edited on 21-05-2020 12:44
21-05-2020 17:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: Now see I don't think doing everything over again is a requirement to consider and debate scientific issues. I realize that you don't feel as though you need to even understand what science is to simply declare something "scientific." You refuse to learn anything, well, about any topic, and yet you dig yourself in on arguments based on egregious misunderstandings. There can be no discussion when that happens ... and you do it 100% of the time. So, the correct answer is yes, you absolutely have a lot of material to catch up on in order to discuss scientific issues. You have a very long way to go before you have any chance of debating any scientific issues. You simply do not have the foundation to avoid wasting other people's time, and your insistence on not learning anything simply guarantees that you intend to be an eternal time-waster. tmiddles wrote:You have not advanced any argument as to why it is that you believe the engineers and scientists that studied Venus got it wrong. You have not advanced any argument as to why I should consider you "engineers and scientists." You are just you. You do not carry the weight of other people and their credentials. In fact, credentials don't matter in an anonymous forum, which is why you don't know what mine are; it's completely irrelevant. All that matters are the ideas you post, and you don't post any except for your Marxist party-line propaganda. I will be happy to discuss raw data with you, all day, all week. I have no intention of wasting any more time entertaining your belief that you are omniscient. It's either data or we move on to something else. What I will spell out for you one final time is that margin of error is initially a target that must be specified at the beginning of a data collection effort which determines the methodology for the measurement ... and then becomes a requirement at the end for any conclusions to be considered "valid." So the next time you want to discuss something with data as a basis (instead of your omniscience) you must LEAD with your intended target margin of error so that your eventual conclusions can be dismissed up front without wasting anyone's time if your target margin of error isn't going to support your argument. Do you see how that works? If you are going to make an argument then you bear the full responsibility of supporting that argument, and if the support for that argument involves data then part of your argument must be your target margin of error. The tighter your target margin, the more data you are going to need. The looser your target margin, the less you are going to be able to support and the less specific will be your conclusions. tmiddles wrote:You can call me gullible for taking, as a default position and a starting point for discussion, the data provided by those who have done the work already. I call you gullible for believing WILD conclusions that call for a much tighter margin of error than you were ever provided. I call you gullible for believing whatever crap you read on the internet if it is accompanied by enough Marxist propaganda to give you the fix you need. tmiddles wrote: This is how engineering and scientific progress has always been engaged. I am summarily dismissing this statement as well as the notion that you have any clue about either science or engineering processes. tmiddles wrote: You do NOT question everything I question everything. The scientific method calls for as much. You can ask Into the Night; normally everything gets questioned twenty different times in twenty different ways by everybody and ther brother. Question: What do you believe is meant by version 4.17.3C going into testing? Is that perhaps your indication that some things simply aren't questioned? Actually, just for grits and shins, what do YOU believe is never questioned in the development pipeline? tmiddles wrote: You must be selective. Too funny. What things are never tested and never questioned? What things are "selected" for "shielding from scrutiny"? tmiddles wrote: When Josef Stefan deduced the 4th power of absolute temperature for radiance in 1879 he used John Tyndall's research to do it. Nope. Once again, you were gullible. Someone told you this and gave you a few hits off the Marxism bong and you were happy to eat it up. That wouldn't have happened if you weren't mathematically incompetent and you would know the correct answer had you not ignored both Into the Night and I on multiple occasions. tmiddles wrote: I'm simply saying that the ground level of Venus is considerably hotter than the equilibrium temperature of the planet. That's all. ... and if you hadn't ignored me several times you wouldn't be asking me to repeat that your statement is trivial ... it is that way for every planet with an atmosphere, i.e. the bottom of the atmosphere is the warmest due to the pressure generated due to the gravity (per the Ideal Gas law) whereas planets with no atmosphere obviously have no bottom of the atmosphere, yes? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
21-05-2020 22:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	tmiddles wrote: I'm simply saying that the ground level of Venus is considerably hotter than the equilibrium temperature of the planet. That's all. Do you not agree that's a very reasonable conclusion and that we can debate based upon it being accepted as true? And the answer is!: IBdaMann wrote:...You refuse to learn anything, ...There can be no discussion when that happens ... and you do it 100% of the time....you absolutely have a lot of material to catch up on in order to discuss scientific issues. You have a very long way to go before you have any chance of debating any scientific issues. You simply do not have the foundation to avoid wasting other people's time,... So that's a "NO" right? You refuse to debate? IBdaMann wrote:...All that matters are the ideas you post, and you don't post any except for your Marxist party-line propaganda.... Are you calling the Venera mission data "marxist" because the Russians did it??? IBdaMann wrote:...I will be happy to discuss raw data with you,.... Ah the mythic raw data you have NEVER once presented (except what you now deny from the data mine): IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Post the raw data. That chart ... is a chart! It's not data. IBdaMann wrote:If you are going to make an argument then you bear the full responsibility of supporting that argument,... You claim they were not able to determine the temperature of Venus to even a 300 degree margin of error. That's your claim. IBdaMann wrote:I call you gullible for believing whatever crap you read on the internet... I don't consider the research done by the russian engineers who conducted the Venera program directly to be "crap". IBdaMann wrote:...what do YOU believe is never questioned in the development pipeline? "Never"? sneaky IBD. I said that you don't question everything all the time and that is not saying you never question things. I can't think of anything that should "never" be questioned but I can think of a lot of things that it's a waste of time to question (like that VENUS is really hot). If you question everything simultaneously you are paralyzed and can't even debate a topic (as you and ITN cannot). IBdaMann wrote:..... it is that way for every planet with an atmosphere, i.e. the bottom of the atmosphere is the warmest due to the pressure generated due to the gravity (per the Ideal Gas law) whereas planets with no atmosphere obviously have no bottom of the atmosphere, yes? Well I certainly believe that and it's an interesting question as to IF it's only due to the Ideal Gas Law. How about we actually debate the topic and not pretend we did? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 21-05-2020 22:26
22-05-2020 01:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...Go learn statistics and learn to calculate what you need to have.... Now see I don't think doing everything over again (particularly when you lack the ability, true of you and I both) is a requirement to consider and debate scientific issues. Word salad. Statistical math is not science. It is mathematics. Science is not an issue. It is a set of falsifiable theories. You are not debating. You are preaching. You never learned statistical math, so you can't repeat doing so. tmiddles wrote: You have not advanced any argument as to why it is that you believe the engineers and scientists that studied Venus got it wrong. Lie. Engineers don't study Venus. Science isn't a study or a research. It is not engineering. tmiddles wrote: Something about the instruments being damaged at some point? However you did say you didn't think they were lying (as they lacked any motive in the 70s and 80s to do so). It is quite possible the instruments were damaged during the trip, or during descent and landing. In any event, it's irrelevant. You can't measure the temperature of a planet with a single thermometer. You can't measure the temperature of the surface with a single thermometer either. tmiddles wrote: You can call me gullible for taking, as a default position and a starting point for discussion, the data provided by those who have done the work already. I don't agree but whatever. The 'data' you are describing does not exist. No one has ever measured the temperature of Venus or it's surface, or of Earth or it's surface. tmiddles wrote: This is how engineering and scientific progress has always been engaged. Science isn't 'progress'. Engineering isn't 'progress' either. You are presupposing some end goal in mind. There is none. Changes in science and engineering can come about by war, accident, fooling around, studying something and coming up with something else, etc. Engineering is about planning a project, and completing that project according to that plan. It doesn't always come out according to that plan! Example: building a device to measure the luminiferous aether, building an airplane that can't fly, building a rocket that blows up instead of going into space. tmiddles wrote: You do NOT question everything unless you have you life to waste away. Questioning is not a waste of life. tmiddles wrote: You must be selective. Fine. A theory of science is so because it is falsifiable. It's null hypothesis can be tested (and has been tested from time to time). Why then do you summarily question them? In favor of your religion? Is your fundamentalist style religion your basis of your selectivity? tmiddles wrote: When Josef Stefan deduced the 4th power of absolute temperature for radiance in 1879 he used John Tyndall's research to do it. He "took it on faith" you might say. He did not waste his time repeating the experiments. Actually, he did. So have others. They have also designed other experiments. So far, the Stefan-Boltzmann law remains unfalsified. You cannot just discard it or change it on a whim, which is what you've been trying to do. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus. from his DATA MINE I never stated any actual temperature for Venus. That's fine with me. When you say it's "unknown" you mean the exact value correct? You do recognize that the temp (at the ground level) is very high though yes? That's all we need to proceed with a real debate. Define 'very high' in quantitative values. tmiddles wrote: I'm simply saying that the ground level of Venus is considerably hotter than the equilibrium temperature of the planet. That's all. Do you not agree that's a very reasonable conclusion and that we can debate based upon it being accepted as true? Please describe how you measured the temperature of Venus. Please describe how you measured the temperature of the surface of Venus? Again, you must show all your raw data, declare the variance used and justify it, declare the methods of eliminating bias in your data collection methods, define the tolerance of any instruments used and how that value was obtained, describe the calibration time and place of such instruments and how that calibration is maintained from that point, show al your math, and publish the margin of error value and the math for both values. Then you must do it all again at a different fixed point in time using another set of data taken at a fixed point in time. Then, and only then, can you describe a 'change'. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

22-05-2020 01:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: tmiddles wrote: I'm simply saying that the ground level of Venus is considerably hotter than the equilibrium temperature of the planet. That's all. Do you not agree that's a very reasonable conclusion and that we can debate based upon it being accepted as true? And the answer is!: IBdaMann wrote:...You refuse to learn anything, ...There can be no discussion when that happens ... and you do it 100% of the time....you absolutely have a lot of material to catch up on in order to discuss scientific issues. You have a very long way to go before you have any chance of debating any scientific issues. You simply do not have the foundation to avoid wasting other people's time,... So that's a "NO" right? You refuse to debate? No, YOU refuse to debate. A discussion is not a debate. You refuse to discuss either. You are just preaching. Mantra 6. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...All that matters are the ideas you post, and you don't post any except for your Marxist party-line propaganda.... Are you calling the Venera mission data "marxist" because the Russians did it??? No. he is call YOU Marxist for arguing to implement fascism by oligarchy to 'save the planet', which is what you are doing. Mantra 15...29... tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...I will be happy to discuss raw data with you,.... Ah the mythic raw data you have NEVER once presented (except what you now deny from the data mine): IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Post the raw data. That chart ... is a chart! It's not data. IBdaMann wrote:If you are going to make an argument then you bear the full responsibility of supporting that argument,... You claim they were not able to determine the temperature of Venus to even a 300 degree margin of error. That's your claim. A valid claim, based on the rules of statistical math. You can't measure the temperature of a planet with a single thermometer. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:I call you gullible for believing whatever crap you read on the internet... I don't consider the research done by the russian engineers who conducted the Venera program directly to be "crap". It isn't. What YOU are doing with the data is crap. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...what do YOU believe is never questioned in the development pipeline? "Never"? sneaky IBD. I said that you don't question everything all the time and that is not saying you never question things. I can't think of anything that should "never" be questioned but I can think of a lot of things that it's a waste of time to question (like that VENUS is really hot). Define 'really hot', quantitatively. tmiddles wrote: If you question everything simultaneously you are paralyzed and can't even debate a topic (as you and ITN cannot). If you accept random numbers as God you are paralyzed and can't even debate a topic (or even intelligently discuss it). tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:..... it is that way for every planet with an atmosphere, i.e. the bottom of the atmosphere is the warmest due to the pressure generated due to the gravity (per the Ideal Gas law) whereas planets with no atmosphere obviously have no bottom of the atmosphere, yes? Well I certainly believe that and it's an interesting question as to IF it's only due to the Ideal Gas Law. How about we actually debate the topic and not pretend we did? Go ahead. You have now stated your belief. That is not a discussion, debate, or argument. It is simply a statement. Go ahead. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-05-2020 02:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:Stefan-Boltzmann law remains unfalsified. You cannot just discard it or change it on a whim, which is what you've been trying to do. How is that? Can you please make a coherent argument? I am discarding the SB Law when I _________? Into the Night wrote:Please describe how you measured the temperature of Venus. Please describe how you measured the temperature of the surface of Venus? I didn't and that's a deliberately stupid question. I find the work done credible. You have never stated what margin of error you'd give the temp of Venus as represented by the scientist that studied it directly. 10,000 degrees? 5000 degrees? Why did you say, so confidently that you knew Venus had high temperatures, high pressure, a composition of gases, and so on? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:I don't consider the research done by the russian engineers who conducted the Venera program directly to be "crap". It isn't. What YOU are doing with the data is crap. So you find their investigation of Venus to be reliable now? What "crap" did I do? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...I can think of a lot of things that it's a waste of time to question (like that VENUS is really hot). Define 'really hot', quantitatively. How about you define "High Temperature": Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus. from: the DATA MINE Really hot, from a human point of view, is hot enough to cause physical injury so certainly over 80C is "really hot". Venus, estimated at 460C most definitely qualifies as "really hot". Looking forward to your definition of "high temperature" ITN! Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...I certainly believe that and it's an interesting question... Go ahead. You have now stated your belief. That is not a discussion, debate, or argument. It is simply a statement. Discuss it with myself? It's IBDs concept he's advanced. I'm very interested to hear more. I have simply attempted to establish a premise for debate that there is a "high temperature" to discuss the cause of at all. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 22-05-2020 02:47
22-05-2020 03:31
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	The first law of DUNK states 'A Warmazombie can not be converted' Stefan- Boltzman can suck it.I can get both sides of the Debate you guys are having.Its nice to be in the middle.We have just had nice warm sunny days but the rain is coming next week no cyclones yet and the bushfires have gone away
22-05-2020 06:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Stefan-Boltzmann law remains unfalsified. You cannot just discard it or change it on a whim, which is what you've been trying to do. How is that? Can you please make a coherent argument? I am discarding the SB Law when I _________? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Please describe how you measured the temperature of Venus. Please describe how you measured the temperature of the surface of Venus? I didn't and that's a deliberately stupid question. I find the work done credible. Then you don't know the temperature of Venus. You don't even know if the temperature the probe returned is accurate. tmiddles wrote: You have never stated what margin of error you'd give the temp of Venus as represented by the scientist that studied it directly. 10,000 degrees? 5000 degrees? No scientist measured the temperature of Venus. tmiddles wrote: Why did you say, so confidently that you knew Venus had high temperatures, high pressure, a composition of gases, and so on? Higher than any observed temperature on Earth (in the open atmosphere). Higher pressure than Earth (in the open atmosphere). Composition of gases are very rough measurements, taken as a column of atmosphere as probes descended to the surface. Of course, it does not describe the composition of gases elsewhere on the planet. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:I don't consider the research done by the russian engineers who conducted the Venera program directly to be "crap". It isn't. What YOU are doing with the data is crap. So you find their investigation of Venus to be reliable now? What "crap" did I do? Assumed one thermometer actually represents the temperature of Venus or its surface. It doesn't. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...I can think of a lot of things that it's a waste of time to question (like that VENUS is really hot). Define 'really hot', quantitatively. How about you define "High Temperature": Higher temperature than Earth. Define 'really hot'. Is it the same definition? tmiddles wrote: Really hot, from a human point of view, is hot enough to cause physical injury so certainly over 80C is "really hot". Venus, estimated at 460C most definitely qualifies as "really hot". Okay. You have defined what 'really hot' means, quantitatively. Anything over 80 deg C. tmiddles wrote: Looking forward to your definition of "high temperature" ITN! Repetition. You already asked this. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...I certainly believe that and it's an interesting question... Go ahead. You have now stated your belief. That is not a discussion, debate, or argument. It is simply a statement. Discuss it with myself? It's IBDs concept he's advanced. I'm very interested to hear more. I have simply attempted to establish a premise for debate that there is a "high temperature" to discuss the cause of at all. The Sun. Anything else? 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-05-2020 06:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	duncan61 wrote: The first law of DUNK states 'A Warmazombie can not be converted' Stefan- Boltzman can suck it.I can get both sides of the Debate you guys are having.Its nice to be in the middle.We have just had nice warm sunny days but the rain is coming next week no cyclones yet and the bushfires have gone away Ooooh. Rain to grow the grass and brush that will later dry out to feed those bushfires. Not good. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 22-05-2020 06:31
22-05-2020 10:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:. tmiddles wrote: Why did you say, so confidently that you knew Venus had high temperatures, high pressure, a composition of gases, and so on? Higher than any observed temperature on Earth (in the open atmosphere). Higher pressure than Earth (in the open atmosphere). Composition of gases are very rough measurements, taken as a column of atmosphere as probes descended to the surface. Of course, it does not describe the composition of gases elsewhere on the planet. OK works for me we can proceed with an accepted : "higher than any observed temperature on Earth" knowledge of Venus. How about we simply leave it at this: We are confident the mean ground level temperature of Venus is over 60C. Sound good? 60C is well over whats observed on Earth and also over the equilibrium temp of Venus with an emissivity of 1.0. Sure it's 400 degrees below what was measures but so what, lets be super sure we aren't assuming too much.
22-05-2020 23:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:. tmiddles wrote: Why did you say, so confidently that you knew Venus had high temperatures, high pressure, a composition of gases, and so on? Higher than any observed temperature on Earth (in the open atmosphere). Higher pressure than Earth (in the open atmosphere). Composition of gases are very rough measurements, taken as a column of atmosphere as probes descended to the surface. Of course, it does not describe the composition of gases elsewhere on the planet. OK works for me we can proceed with an accepted : "higher than any observed temperature on Earth" knowledge of Venus. How about we simply leave it at this: We are confident the mean ground level temperature of Venus is over 60C. Sound good? 60C is well over whats observed on Earth and also over the equilibrium temp of Venus with an emissivity of 1.0. Sure it's 400 degrees below what was measures but so what, lets be super sure we aren't assuming too much. No. I do not speculate on the temperature of Venus. You shouldn't either. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-05-2020 06:36
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: We are confident the mean ground level temperature of Venus is over 60C. Sound good? No. I do not speculate on the temperature of Venus. You shouldn't either. Define "speculate" please. We have directly measured the temperature of Venus. Are you saying you are not confident that the mean ground level temperature of Venus is over 60C? I have accused you often of not being interested in debating but it's always your decision. Here at climate-debate.com in order to debate the thermodynamics of planets we do need to work with planets after all. Edited on 24-05-2020 06:37
24-05-2020 21:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: We are confident the mean ground level temperature of Venus is over 60C. Sound good? No. I do not speculate on the temperature of Venus. You shouldn't either. Define "speculate" please. We have directly measured the temperature of Venus. No one has ever measured the temperature of Venus or any other planet (including Earth). tmiddles wrote: Are you saying you are not confident that the mean ground level temperature of Venus is over 60C? RQAA tmiddles wrote: I have accused you often of not being interested in debating but it's always your decision. No, it's yours. Inversion fallacy. Mantra 17. tmiddles wrote: Here at climate-debate.com in order to debate the thermodynamics of planets we do need to work with planets after all. Planets are not beings that you cooperate with. Preaching based on bad math is not debating or discussing.. Inversion fallacy. Forums are not debates. They are discussions. There is nothing formal about any discussion here. Mantra 31...6...29...39j... No argument presented. RQAA. Argument from randU 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-05-2020 01:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Define "speculate" please. No one has ever measured the temperature of Venus or any other planet (including Earth). Is it ever not "speculating" to discuss the temperature of anything at all? How does a portion of a planet differ from any other subject matter? Why can't you confidently discuss that Venus is hot on the ground when you have said as much? Into the Night wrote:Forums are not debates. Have you asked for the URL to be changed? Maybe you're in the wrong place. This is what is indisputable based on your own post: Venus is hotter than Earth ever is. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Why did you say, so confidently that you knew Venus had high temperatures,...? Higher than any observed temperature on Earth (in the open atmosphere). So why can't we proceed based on that without constantly reverting to saying we don't know. You said it and I believe it so why the constant circling over it not being known? If you can accept that Venus is hotter than " any observed temperature on Earth" that is plenty for the purposes of dealing with the laws of thermodynamics as you have been applying them to Earth. This is simply because the equilibrium temperature for any object 67,000,000 miles from the Sun, or 0.7 astronomical units, is not speculation any more than knowing the intensity of radiance from the Sun in our solar system is speculation. This provides us with the simple disparity in Venus having a ground level temp that exceeds it's equilibrium temp. We do not need to know either precisely to know this. Reviewing your statements about Plancks Law and the 1st and 2nd LTD in light of this is something we can do beyond any reasonable doubt about that premise(simply that Venus is hotter on the ground than it's equilibrium temperature). Edited on 25-05-2020 01:16

Page 2 of 3

Join the debate How a cooler body heats a warmer body.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Jimmy Hoffa's body may be located which will mean the end of World Hunger and climate change both	0	01-11-2023 20:25
Speaking of morgues, Harvard is now majoring in selling human body parts	0	15-06-2023 03:18
Humanity Must Evolve Because The Connection Mechanism Between Human Body & COVID Is Similar To Comput	1	05-09-2021 06:14
The Savior Offer A Special Program To Help You Unlock Your God Body & Live Like Gods	1	24-02-2021 06:15
The Corona Virus NCOV Is Harmless If You Body Is Clean Healthy But Dangerous If Your Body Is Dirty Toxic	0	31-07-2020 12:09