Remember me
▼ Content

Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat


Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat14-09-2019 20:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Fundamental thermodynamics cannot be avoided in the CLIMATE DEBATE.
As some conspiracy theories doubt the accuracy of text books i'm following up the Net Thermal Radiation example with the work of those who discovered it. While the "net flow" is always from hotter to colder, warmer objects do absorb the energy from cooler ones. Let's hear from:
____Max Planck___________&____________Pierre Provost
__

From Max Planck's 1919 work: Where is science going?
Here Planck actual affirms that thermal energy from a cooler body can even be absorbed by a warmer body via conduction!
Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...iron heated...plunge it into...cold water. The heat of the iron will pass to the water until ...thermal equilibrium"
"Heat could flow in the reverse process from cold water to hot iron, and the Principle of Conservation of Energy still hold good because heat itself is a form of energy, and the principle only demands that the quantity of heat given up by water be equal to that absorbed by the iron...
So we have net flow with energy free to move from one object to the other with the overall flow always being in the direction of hotter to colder.

But the discovery that in radiation hot objects also absorbed energy from their cooler environment was pioneered by Prevost and Planck credits him for that: 
Max Planck wrote: Pg. 184 "...considering...heat radiation...it was always the strict rule to deal only with the difference between the radiation absorbed and that emitted because all the heat rays that a body absorbs it can also give out...But in the theory of Prevost these two processes were separated from one another and each of them given an independent meaning."  

Pierre Prevost's work was 100 years before Plancks but he was able to determine that radiative heat is an exchange and not a one way transfer. Previous to 1780 (and occasionally on this board) the assumption was that when two bodies have equal temperatures there is "nothing going on" in terms of radiation or thermal exchange. This was debunked by Provost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_equilibrium

"Prevost's theory of exchanges stated that each body radiates to, and receives radiation from, other bodies. The radiation from each body is emitted regardless of the presence or absence of other bodies. Prevost in 1791 offered the following definitions (translated[, and he called radiation "free heat"]):

Pierre Prevost wrote: Absolute equilibrium of free heat is the state of this fluid in a portion of space which receives as much of it as it lets escape.

Pierre Prevost wrote: Relative equilibrium of free heat is the state of this fluid in two portions of space which receive from each other equal quantities of heat, and which moreover are in absolute equilibrium, or experience precisely equal changes.
"
Now if you're reading this you may be wondering why thermodynamics which were figured out 239 years ago need to be defended. The sorry state of the CLIMATE DEBATE means that those who are skeptical and want to explore the issue are constantly confronted by those who have wacked out misrepresentations of what they claim is the known/established science.

But let's put another nail in that coffin. Planck gets into some detailed descriptions of how there is actual thermal energy transferred from a cooler molecule to a hotter one:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another.

So not every molecule has the same kinetic energy in an object and what we call temperature is the average of a mix of energies.

Here he even directly debunks the notion that energy is only transferred from a warmer to a cooler molecule:
Max Planck wrote:It must not be supposed, however, that when two individual molecules strike together the one with the greater kinetic energy is slowed down and the other accelerated, for if — to take an example — a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished.

Here Planck is describing how a slow moving molecule could have an impact with a fast moving molecule at an angle. Imagine two objects, one going 80mph and the other 40mph, having a collision at 90 degrees. the 40mph object striking the side of the 80mph object. For the 40mph object the side of the 80mph object is a wall and the velocity of the 40mph object is lowered in the crash. The 80mph object receives an extra jolt of energy from the slower one, it's direction changed and the energy in it's movement increased. You could prove this on a pool table!

He goes on:
Max Planck wrote:But, taken on the whole, unless the circumstances are quite exceptional the kinetic energies must mix to a certain amount, and this mixing is what appears as an equalizing of the temperature of the two bodies. Boltzmann, however, did not press his hypothesis very strongly before the notice of scientists and there was great hesitancy about accepting it, but nowadays it is fully accepted.

Nowadays as of that writing would be 1919 but don't worry it's still accepted!

We have to go with the best information we have. Above all we should go forward and figure out what we can. Those who claim we must be paralyzed by doubt and resolve to do nothing have an agenda antithetical to science.
Edited on 14-09-2019 20:43
15-09-2019 06:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:Fundamental thermodynamics cannot be avoided in the CLIMATE DEBATE.

You have a potentially interesting point, but there is something you are not grasping and it is keeping the conversation from moving forward.

The race has started. You gate has opened but you won't come out. You've got people outside encouraging you to come on out and start running, but you cling to the back of the stall like you are spooked by something.

I read your post with interest ... but all you wrote was "this person said this, and that person said that."

On what repeatable experiment did Max Planck base what he supposedly said? Remember, science does not involve anyone's opinion. No one cares what Max Planck said so much as that his science has not yet be shown to be false.

Can you be convinced to set aside the who said what for just a moment and focus on what exactly we can claim to agree? Did Max Planck soon thereafter say "Nevermind, I was wrong"? Maybe he did, but it wouldn't matter if there was some repeatable experiment that renders what he or anyone else says on the matter completely moot and immaterial.

I realize that you might need some time to learn what "repeatable" means and why some other person acting completely independently would need to be able to recreate the exact conditions for results to be valid and conclusive. You might also want to look up non-reputability (it mirrors falsifiability) as far as developing a test in which if an independent tester gets differing results then you can't retort that "he didn't do the test the way I did".

I'd really like to work with you. Just let me know when you'd like to re-engage.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
21-09-2019 17:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
.... you cling to the back of the stall like you are spooked by something....No one cares what Max Planck said....You might also want to look up

So we have more BS psychoanalysis, hiding the ball, and homework assignments from the mad professor.

But there is
NO RESPONSE AT ALL FROM ITN/IBD TO WHAT WAS POSTED

Because you're busted. Be crazy and claim here all you like that your contradiction of established science is the real established science. You guys are simply dishonest.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 21-09-2019 17:54
21-09-2019 19:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:But there is
NO RESPONSE AT ALL FROM ITN/IBD TO WHAT WAS POSTED


There have been too many responses, all ignored by you, for me to continue.

The ball has been in your court for months now but there has been
NO RESPONSE AT ALL FROM YOU TO WHAT WAS POSTED

You are simply dishonest.

Let me know when you want to re-engage.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
22-09-2019 14:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
The ball has been in your court for months now

I won't prove your points for you. I choose not to respond to insults or you psychoanalysis which is all you've offered. I have presented a case more than once now that debunks you. You haven't responded to any of them which isn't surprising I suppose. You and ITN are frauds and I've shown that. I don't expect you to admit it.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
22-09-2019 18:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The ball has been in your court for months now

I won't prove your points for you.

I certainly wouldn't ask you to duplicate effort.

tmiddles wrote: I choose not to respond to insults or you psychoanalysis which is all you've offered.

You choose not to answer any questions and to ignore eveything written. You refuse to research anything.

tmiddles wrote: I have presented a case more than once now

Yes, you cling to your single solitary non-repeatable scenario with far too many unknown variables to isolate the point of your claim. You have made it clear that your intention is to squat on this one, single non-repeatable scenario while refusing to debate anything honestly ... like a tree-hugger who is not there to engage in discussions.

You are dishonest ... but that comes with your Marxism.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
22-09-2019 23:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
You refuse to research anything.
.

I have done a great deal of research so far.

This is your claim:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

I have shown that 12 references including 5 textbooks, a repeatable experiment from one of those textbooks, Max Planck and Pierre Provost all contradict you.

You have shown nothing 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 ever valid for them
23-09-2019 00:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You refuse to research anything.
.

I have done a great deal of research so far.

I realize that you consider zero to be taxing.

tmiddles wrote:Max Planck and Pierre Provost all contradict you.

So you are pointing to humans who supposedly contradict an absurd position that you assigned to me?

It looks like you have thoroughly thrashed me.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
23-09-2019 00:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
.... an absurd position that you assigned to me?

This is a quote. It links to the source topic.
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

I would agree it's absurd.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
23-09-2019 01:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
.... an absurd position that you assigned to me?

This is a quote. It links to the source topic.
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

I would agree it's absurd.


Contextomy fallacy. Lie. He did not say it was absurd.

No molecule or atom will absorb a molecule of less energy than the molecule or atom already has. Now you are denying quantum physics.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2019 11:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
.... an absurd position that you assigned to me?

This is a quote. It links to the source topic.
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

I would agree it's absurd.


Contextomy fallacy. Lie. He did not say it was absurd.

No molecule or atom will absorb a molecule of less energy than the molecule or atom already has. Now you are denying quantum physics.


You have no response to the whole topic. How pathetic.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
23-09-2019 14:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:You have no response to the whole topic. How pathetic.

Interesting. You say that he has no response in response to his response.

I've got no response.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
25-09-2019 11:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:You have no response to the whole topic. How pathetic.

Interesting. You say that he has no response in response to his response.
I've got no response.
Yes you and ITN are running scared. ITN has had no response to this topic but then neither have you. But what can you say when you've been proven wrong. Me? I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. It's like super power you should try it.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
25-09-2019 12:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:I have no problem admitting I'm wrong.

I don't recall you being asked to admit to being wrong, but only to provide a repeatable instance of your point, for which you DO have a problem.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
25-09-2019 14:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I have no problem admitting I'm wrong.

I don't recall you being asked to admit to being wrong, but only to provide a repeatable instance of your point, for which you DO have a problem.

Oh but IBD it was only the debunking of YOUR point.
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
There isn't normally a need to debunk made up versions of fundamental thermodynamics, especially when they are so easily disproven.

But here you go as you seem to have forgotten. Here is everything you pretend doesn't exist:
1 - 12 references that includes 5 text books debunking you
2 - An easily repeatable example that debunks you (from a text book)
3 - Direct contradiction of your wild claim by Max Planck and Pierre Provost

To date you haven't presented anything at all. Just questions, home work assignments, and psychological profiles of me.

How does it feel to live a lie?


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
25-09-2019 14:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:Oh but IBD it was only the debunking of YOUR point.

Is that all? Are you saying that you don't want to discuss anything and that you have no questions but that you just need me to be wrong about something ... anything? I thought we covered that.

Black is white. Night is day. Thomas Jefferson was a communist.

Oooops, my bad. I was wrong.

So, no repeatable example supporting your point is forthcoming. OK, I guess we're done then.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
25-09-2019 21:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I have no problem admitting I'm wrong.

I don't recall you being asked to admit to being wrong, but only to provide a repeatable instance of your point, for which you DO have a problem.

Oh but IBD it was only the debunking of YOUR point.
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
There isn't normally a need to debunk made up versions of fundamental thermodynamics, especially when they are so easily disproven.

But here you go as you seem to have forgotten. Here is everything you pretend doesn't exist:
1 - 12 references that includes 5 text books debunking you
2 - An easily repeatable example that debunks you (from a text book)
3 - Direct contradiction of your wild claim by Max Planck and Pierre Provost

To date you haven't presented anything at all. Just questions, home work assignments, and psychological profiles of me.

How does it feel to live a lie?


You DO realize, don't you, that you are attempting to debunk your own physics books?


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2019 21:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Oh but IBD it was only the debunking of YOUR point.

Is that all? Are you saying that you don't want to discuss anything...
You decide to be fraud and play games. All of my debunking of you goes unchallenged to date. Do your own homework crazy Yoda.

Into the Night wrote:....you are attempting to debunk your own physics books?
ITN the most verbose and in-discriminant poster imaginable, littering the board with cr_p every day, pretends it's plausible he knows something but can't find the time to share. Debunked Fraud.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote]
25-09-2019 22:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Oh but IBD it was only the debunking of YOUR point.

Is that all? Are you saying that you don't want to discuss anything...
You decide to be fraud and play games. All of my debunking of you goes unchallenged to date. Do your own homework crazy Yoda.

Into the Night wrote:....you are attempting to debunk your own physics books?
ITN the most verbose and in-discriminant poster imaginable, littering the board with cr_p every day, pretends it's plausible he knows something but can't find the time to share. Debunked Fraud.


RQAA. YALIF.


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2019 22:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote:
RQAA. YALIF.


TGHYYA QBDI

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote][/quote]
25-09-2019 23:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
RQAA. YALIF.


TGHYYA QBDI

URN1D10T

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
26-09-2019 02:12
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1431)
tmiddles wrote:How does it feel to live a lie?


Let's see here...

This from the guy who showed up on this board pretending to not know much of any science, and then magikally learns more than he did in 4 years at a Berkeley like indoctrination, in just a few days!!!
The rate of learning was staggering!!

He prentended to appreciate the learning, all the while he was only trying to lay a trap for his parlor trick.

Mr. tmmiddles, your education is well beyond mine. I'm here to learn, and it's quite possible that you could have taught me something. However,
it is YOU that is a liar and a fraud and therefore your credibility is exactly zero.

tmiddles wrote:How does it feel to live a lie?

Well? How DOES it feel?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 26-09-2019 02:19
26-09-2019 02:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
GasGuzzler wrote:...magikally learns more than he did in 4 years at a Berkeley...

Actually I was quite candid that I simply quoted the text book. You know GG you never did answer that question: Do you really believe all the textbooks, going back 239 years, are part of a vast "Warmazombie" conspiracy? That doesn't sound slightly insane to you?

12 references that includes 5 text books debunking the wild and insane claim:

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

So boring you dubunked frauds can't even debate science now. It's all just insults and personal attacks.

FYI GG you never responded: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/earth-surface-temperature-measurements-d6-e2788-s40.php#post_44624

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
26-09-2019 02:36
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1431)
The textbooks are beyond my understanding. I have learned so much here from good people who don't lie. They explain in detail with analogies that I can relate to and I get it.

I have also learned that science is falsifiable. It can't be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. Therefore, anyone with opposite views must be heard. There is that chance they have falsified a theory of science. However, in order to do so, they must have a repeatable example.

You would gain some credibility back if you could do this....you know, the heat flowing backwards thing.
26-09-2019 02:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
GasGuzzler wrote:
You would gain some credibility back if you could do this....you know, the heat flowing backwards thing.

If I lost credibility with GG that's OK because this isn't about me. The psycho babble is all just deflection. I have provided a repeatable example as you know. IBD has disqualified everything for 5 years, never qualified anything (in the land of IBD) and surprise surprise he says it's no good but won't explain why. ALSO there is nothing stopping IBD or anyone from providing there own examples. I'm quite happy with the following being a very thorough trouncing of BS:
The wild claim which is entirely unsuported:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Three thorough debunkings (including a repeatable example):
1 - 12 references that includes 5 text books debunking you
2 - An easily repeatable example that debunks you (from a text book)
3 - Direct contradiction of your wild claim by Max Planck and Pierre Provost

Carry on. I'm happy to discuss things with you any time.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
26-09-2019 05:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The textbooks are beyond my understanding. I have learned so much here from good people who don't lie. They explain in detail with analogies that I can relate to and I get it.

I have also learned that science is falsifiable. It can't be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. Therefore, anyone with opposite views must be heard. There is that chance they have falsified a theory of science. However, in order to do so, they must have a repeatable example.

You would gain some credibility back if you could do this....you know, the heat flowing backwards thing.


He is actually trying to debunk his own reference books in physics. You know, the chapters in them that discuss the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

He says the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been falsified. He has yet to show how, other than to mug up random numbers.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2019 05:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
You would gain some credibility back if you could do this....you know, the heat flowing backwards thing.

If I lost credibility with GG that's OK because this isn't about me. The psycho babble is all just deflection. I have provided a repeatable example as you know. IBD has disqualified everything for 5 years, never qualified anything (in the land of IBD) and surprise surprise he says it's no good but won't explain why. ALSO there is nothing stopping IBD or anyone from providing there own examples. I'm quite happy with the following being a very thorough trouncing of BS:
The wild claim which is entirely unsuported:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Three thorough debunkings (including a repeatable example):
1 - 12 references that includes 5 text books debunking you
2 - An easily repeatable example that debunks you (from a text book)
3 - Direct contradiction of your wild claim by Max Planck and Pierre Provost

Carry on. I'm happy to discuss things with you any time.

[


Everyone's wrong but you, eh?


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2019 05:52
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1431)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:...magikally learns more than he did in 4 years at a Berkeley...

Actually I was quite candid that I simply quoted the text book. You know GG you never did answer that question: Do you really believe all the textbooks, going back 239 years, are part of a vast "Warmazombie" conspiracy? That doesn't sound slightly insane to you?

12 references that includes 5 text books debunking the wild and insane claim:

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

So boring you dubunked frauds can't even debate science now. It's all just insults and personal attacks.

FYI GG you never responded: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/earth-surface-temperature-measurements-d6-e2788-s40.php#post_44624

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


OK smartass...

Put a car in that same room, 70 degrees, engine running. It has a 155 degree thermostat. It will burn about 1/2 gallon per hour of fuel at idle. There are 31,000 calories in a gallon of fuel, so 372,000 daily calorie "diet". The engine hood temp is 95. Is the hood absorbing heat from the walls in a net flow of heat?

I want to see your math, maybe this time I'll understand it.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
26-09-2019 19:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote: If I lost credibility with GG that's OK because this isn't about me.

You've made it all about you. You came here to preach. Your point is that we should all be Marxists and that you will bully anyone who disagrees with your Marxism.

The problem is that you are lame. You tried to be deceptive and to not reveal that you are a obedient Marxist on a mission to carry out the orders of your slave-masters ... but I spotted you immediately and called you out.

July 10:
tmiddles wrote: Doesn't Venus have some serious atmospheric warmth?


IBDaMann wrote: Please stop being the poster boy for gullibility. It looks like you'll willingly regurgitate anything.


It seems that nothing has changed from when you came here to preach in July. It seems that your intention was to ignore any and all posts, deny physics, butcher math, and generally push a Marxist agenda.

On 17 July, IBDaMann wrote: So we can now officially attribute your confusion to specific problems on your end.

1. You don't understand what a "planet's temperature" means and you ignored the posts that explained to you what it is.

2. You are mathematically incompetent and have no understanding of the data requirements for a valid dataset to determine a planet's temperature.

3. What anyone "expected" is completely irrelevant, especially if he or she was mistaken.

4. I don't know how far you got in school but you apparently look at temperature maps of the bottom of the atmosphere (i.e. the surface) as in this example, and believe that there is only one single "the temperature" which you strangely insist is the entire planet's temperature, with zero margin of error.


_____________

tmiddles wrote: The psycho babble is all just deflection.

You hate having your intentions and motivations revealed. You become seen as dishonest and petty, all credibility goes out the window, etc...

tmiddles wrote: I have provided a repeatable example as you know.

What GasGuzzler knows is that, at this point, you are publicly deluding yourself for everyone's amusement. Surely you must know that there is a date/time stamp on your post and that you won't be able to point to any post of a prior date/time with any repeatable example without living things that isolates thermal energy flowing from colder to warmer. Surely you must know that anyone reading your post will only find your desperately and copiously referenced non-repeatable example. One can only wonder how easy it is for you to delude yourself in this way. You certainly make it look easy.

tmiddles wrote: IBD has disqualified everything for 5 years, never qualified anything (in the land of IBD) and surprise surprise he says it's no good but won't explain why.

How easy was it to delude yourself of this ridiculous hyperbole? Challenging? Simple? What?

tmiddles wrote: ALSO there is nothing stopping IBD or anyone from providing there own examples.

... of what? You are the one not providing a repeatable example of your point so that we can establish that model as a baseline ... because you never had any intention of discussing the matter.

Let me know when something changes, like when you snap out of your stupor.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
26-09-2019 21:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Into the Night wrote: the chapters in them that discuss the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Was there a text book or one of the 12 references I presented you find credible ITN?

GasGuzzler wrote:Is the hood absorbing heat from the walls in a net flow of heat?
So "Heat" is net flow and only goes in one direction. The hood IS absorbing radiance from the walls, but it gives more than it gets so the "heat" is outbound. This should clarify it for you: Would the hood temp drop from 95 to a lower temperature, from increased heat loss, if the room was not 70 degrees but -30 degrees instead? What if the room was 94 degrees, do you think the cars temp would not change in response?
What about replacing the car in your example, where heat is a side effect, with an electric heater, a radiator? Since the specs/calculations on that would be less complex.

IBdaMann wrote:....preach....Marxism...lame...deceptive...regurgitate...incompetent...deluding yourself...your stupor...
More wasted time on psychoanalysis. Yawn


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them.
Edited on 26-09-2019 21:38
26-09-2019 22:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote: More wasted time on psychoanalysis. Yawn

I fully acknowledge that you are beyond help. I have never claimed otherwise.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
27-09-2019 02:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: the chapters in them that discuss the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Was there a text book or one of the 12 references I presented you find credible ITN?
RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
27-09-2019 02:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Is the hood absorbing heat from the walls in a net flow of heat?
So "Heat" is net flow and only goes in one direction. The hood IS absorbing radiance from the walls, but it gives more than it gets so the "heat" is outbound. This should clarify it for you: Would the hood temp drop from 95 to a lower temperature, from increased heat loss, if the room was not 70 degrees but -30 degrees instead? What if the room was 94 degrees, do you think the cars temp would not change in response?
What about replacing the car in your example, where heat is a side effect, with an electric heater, a radiator? Since the specs/calculations on that would be less complex.


* There is no 'net heat'. Heat only flow in one direction, from hot to cold.
* You cannot decrease entropy in any system.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.20113-09-2019 05:53
Black body radiation2919-08-2019 09:11
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Radiation saturation510-08-2019 07:16
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
▲ 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