Remember me
▼ Content

NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.



Page 4 of 8<<<23456>>>
04-09-2019 19:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.

Awe how you wish that was what I was saying.

Contextomy fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
You can have radiance from a cooler body absorbed by a hotter body.

No, you can't.
tmiddles wrote:
Net radiance will always be from hotter to colder.

No such thing as 'net radiance' in that context. Contextomy 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
05-09-2019 03:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
If you are saying that "some" heat flows from cold to hot


How are you defining "Heat"?

I have not being using it by the way because I'm not sure if you, ITN and I meant he same thing when we say it.

I have said that radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one.
05-09-2019 03:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you are saying that "some" heat flows from cold to hot


How are you defining "Heat"?

Really??? You are now going to try to claim we haven't defined 'heat' for you??
tmiddles wrote:
I have not being using it by the way because I'm not sure if you, ITN and I meant he same thing when we say it.

Really???
tmiddles wrote:
I have said that radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one.

Heat cannot flow from cold to hot.


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
05-09-2019 03:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
Really??? You are now going to try to claim we haven't defined 'heat' for you??

How are you defining "Heat"?

I believe in Net Heat along with the rest of the world remember? I honestly don't know what you loons are thinking when you say it.
Edited on 05-09-2019 03:27
05-09-2019 05:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Hmm, post dissapeared.
Edited on 05-09-2019 05:53
05-09-2019 05:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:I have said that radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one.

Yes ...

Your position: NOT [2nd LoT]
My position: 2nd LoT

Nobody's position is better than anyone else's. What you believe helps you make sense of the world. Great. I'm not going to disparage anyone for not believing as I do.


.


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
05-09-2019 05:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I have said that radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one.

Yes ...

Your position: NOT [2nd LoT]
My position: 2nd LoT

Nobody's position is better than anyone else's. What you believe helps you make sense of the world. Great. I'm not going to disparage anyone for not believing as I do.
.


So how do you define heat bucko?
05-09-2019 06:01
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Really??? You are now going to try to claim we haven't defined 'heat' for you??

How are you defining "Heat"?

I believe in Net Heat along with the rest of the world remember? I honestly don't know what you loons are thinking when you say it.


...and there it is. Net Heat is his religion. Does the High Priest know about your little spinoff from the Church of Green?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Attached image:

05-09-2019 06:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Net Heat is his religion.

It's in every textbook on thermodynamics and it obvious from the example made in this topic.

P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

You, GasGuzzler, have had no response to it.

Here I thought I was just clarifying some physics but I've built an insanity detector.
RE: Dictionary Definition05-09-2019 06:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/heat?s=t
heat
In physics, a form of energy associated with the movement of atoms and molecules in any material. The higher the temperature of a material, the faster the atoms are moving, and hence the greater the amount of energy present as heat. (See infrared radiation.)

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/infrared-radiation
infrared radiation[ (in-fruh-red) ]
Invisible radiation in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum characterized by wavelengths just longer than those of ordinary visible red light and shorter than those of microwaves or radio waves.

So do you define infrared radiation as heat IBD, ITN, GG ?
05-09-2019 06:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Really??? You are now going to try to claim we haven't defined 'heat' for you??

How are you defining "Heat"?

I believe in Net Heat along with the rest of the world remember? I honestly don't know what you loons are thinking when you say it.


There is no such thing as net heat. I have already told you what heat is. I told you where that definition came from. You just want to deny it (again).

You don't get to speak for the rest of the world. You only get to speak for you. Consensus is not used in science.

Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).


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
05-09-2019 06:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Net Heat is his religion.

It's in every textbook on thermodynamics and it obvious from the example made in this topic.

P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

You, GasGuzzler, have had no response to it.

Here I thought I was just clarifying some physics but I've built an insanity detector.


Misapplication of differential radiance equation. Radiance is not heat.


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
05-09-2019 06:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
[quote]tmiddles wrote: P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

The fact that you must copy-paste broadcasts to the world that you don't understand the material, which explains why you don't realize how you are misapplying it and how impossible it is for you to research that underlying problem.

It serves as sort of an insanity alert to everybody.




What amuses me is your dedicated resolve to assigning the blame for your shortcomings to other people.


.


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
05-09-2019 06:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/heat?s=t
heat
In physics, a form of energy associated with the movement of atoms and molecules in any material. The higher the temperature of a material, the faster the atoms are moving, and hence the greater the amount of energy present as heat. (See infrared radiation.)

Incorrect. This is the definition of thermal energy, not heat. Be aware that dictionaries don't define words.
...deleted link to false authority...
tmiddles wrote:
infrared radiation[ (in-fruh-red) ]
Invisible radiation in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum characterized by wavelengths just longer than those of ordinary visible red light and shorter than those of microwaves or radio waves.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
So do you define infrared radiation as heat IBD, ITN, GG ?

This is not heat. It's light. Light is not heat.


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
05-09-2019 06:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
Misapplication of differential radiance equation. Radiance is not heat.
IBdaMann wrote:
you are misapplying it

So you acknowledge that equation is used for something?! Are you finally crafting an exit strategy from this madness! I do hope so.

So ITN/IBD. What is P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4) properly used for???
05-09-2019 06:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Misapplication of differential radiance equation. Radiance is not heat.
IBdaMann wrote:
you are misapplying it

So you acknowledge that equation is used for something?! Are you finally crafting an exit strategy from this madness! I do hope so.

So ITN/IBD. What is P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4) properly used for???


It describes the difference in radiance for two different bodies. That's all.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 05-09-2019 06:27
05-09-2019 06:26
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
tmiddles wrote:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/heat?s=t
heat
In physics, a form of energy associated with the movement of atoms and molecules in any material. The higher the temperature of a material, the faster the atoms are moving, and hence the greater the amount of energy present as heat. (See infrared radiation.)

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/infrared-radiation
infrared radiation[ (in-fruh-red) ]
Invisible radiation in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum characterized by wavelengths just longer than those of ordinary visible red light and shorter than those of microwaves or radio waves.

So do you define infrared radiation as heat IBD, ITN, GG ?


Dictionary.com?? Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

Heat. Noun...
the condition or quality of being hot:

Ummm,no.

I'd dismiss any source with a definition like that.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 05-09-2019 06:27
05-09-2019 06:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
Be aware that dictionaries don't define words.

People do.

Well some of them.

You refuse to for some reason.

YOUR definition of heat is entirely unclear from what you've written.

Keep in mind you say things all the time, like "Science is a set of falsifiable theories" that only produce YOU as the source of the definition!:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Science+is+a+set+of+falsifiable+theories
05-09-2019 06:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/heat?s=t
heat
In physics, a form of energy associated with the movement of atoms and molecules in any material. The higher the temperature of a material, the faster the atoms are moving, and hence the greater the amount of energy present as heat. (See infrared radiation.)

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/infrared-radiation
infrared radiation[ (in-fruh-red) ]
Invisible radiation in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum characterized by wavelengths just longer than those of ordinary visible red light and shorter than those of microwaves or radio waves.

So do you define infrared radiation as heat IBD, ITN, GG ?


Dictionary.com?? Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

Heat. Noun...
the condition or quality of being hot:

Ummm,no.


Correct. Heat has no temperature.


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
05-09-2019 06:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Be aware that dictionaries don't define words.

People do.

Correct. The definition of heat comes from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you deny.
tmiddles wrote:
YOUR definition of heat is entirely unclear from what you've written.

I already gave it to you. You just keep ignoring what I've already said.
tmiddles wrote:
Keep in mind you say things all the time, like "Science is a set of falsifiable theories" that only produce YOU as the source of the definition!:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Science+is+a+set+of+falsifiable+theories

Try looking deeper in the list. There you will find a man named Karl Popper. I ran your link. I didn't realize I had become so famous on Google!


Sure brings back some memories, some of those old defunct forums...


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 05-09-2019 06:34
05-09-2019 06:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So ITN/IBD. What is P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4) properly used for???

It describes the difference in radiance for two different bodies. That's all.

Uh you might want to double check that buddy. Note there is only ONE "A" for area and not two. This equation if for the NET RADIATIVE TRANSFER for a body in relation to an ambient radiance.

It comes from the combination of radiance out (regardless of another body/ambiance) and absorption in from an ambient radiance.
P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
P(in)=σeA(T2^4)
Combining the equations (click to see EXAMPLE 1.13):
University Physics Volume 2
Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with...absorption of radiation from its surroundings.P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)
05-09-2019 06:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote: I ran your link. I didn't realize I had become so famous on Google!

What you claim is the DEFINITION OF SCIENCE ! has exactly 6 results in Google and it's all you. That is what it is.
Edited on 05-09-2019 06:39
05-09-2019 06:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
Into the Night wrote:It describes the difference in radiance for two different bodies. That's all.

Actually it's the absorption minus the radiance of the cooler body.

The sleight of hand here is that Stefan-Boltzmann usually refers to emission because that's what it calculates. But always remember that the result of Stefan-Boltzmann is a power/area quantity.

1. So the warmer body emits some power that is absorbed by the cooler body per the cooler body's emissivity.

2. The cooler body always radiates per its cooler temperature and its emissivity.

So if you have, say, two bodies of different temperatures in a vacuum and you think "hey, that cooler body is absorbing at the same time it is emitting, what's going on there?"

Well, you have those two values, and conveniently Emissivity and Boltz factor out of both giving you:

Emmiss*Boltz [ Twarm^4 - Tcool^4 ]

... but this is for the cooler body. No radiance from the cooler body is being absorbed by the warmer body.


.


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
05-09-2019 06:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So ITN/IBD. What is P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4) properly used for???

It describes the difference in radiance for two different bodies. That's all.

Uh you might want to double check that buddy. Note there is only ONE "A" for area and not two. This equation if for the NET RADIATIVE TRANSFER for a body in relation to an ambient radiance.

It comes from the combination of radiance out (regardless of another body/ambiance) and absorption in from an ambient radiance.
P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
P(in)=σeA(T2^4)
Combining the equations (click to see EXAMPLE 1.13):
University Physics Volume 2
Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with...absorption of radiation from its surroundings.P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

There is no 'A' for 'area' in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The book you are quoting is wrong.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is:
radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

Radiance is in square meters. Temperature is in Kelvins.


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
05-09-2019 06:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: I ran your link. I didn't realize I had become so famous on Google!

What you claim is the DEFINITION OF SCIENCE ! has exactly 6 results in Google and it's all you. That is what it is.


Lie. Many of these quotes are from gfm175.


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
05-09-2019 06:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:It describes the difference in radiance for two different bodies. That's all.

Actually it's the absorption minus the radiance of the cooler body.... No radiance from the cooler body is being absorbed by the warmer body

And IBD doubles down...

So what's the equation for the warmer body?
And what happens when two bodies reach the same temperature? Do two bodies of equal temperature absorb each others radiance?

And you'd confirm that the text book I linked to has it all wrong correct?
05-09-2019 06:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:It describes the difference in radiance for two different bodies. That's all.

Actually it's the absorption minus the radiance of the cooler body.

The sleight of hand here is that Stefan-Boltzmann usually refers to emission because that's what it calculates. But always remember that the result of Stefan-Boltzmann is a power/area quantity.

1. So the warmer body emits some power that is absorbed by the cooler body per the cooler body's emissivity.

2. The cooler body always radiates per its cooler temperature and its emissivity.

So if you have, say, two bodies of different temperatures in a vacuum and you think "hey, that cooler body is absorbing at the same time it is emitting, what's going on there?"

Well, you have those two values, and conveniently Emissivity and Boltz factor out of both giving you:

Emmiss*Boltz [ Twarm^4 - Tcool^4 ]

... but this is for the cooler body. No radiance from the cooler body is being absorbed by the warmer body.


.

More accurately described. Thank you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-09-2019 06:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: I ran your link. I didn't realize I had become so famous on Google!

What you claim is the DEFINITION OF SCIENCE ! has exactly 6 results in Google and it's all you. That is what it is.


Lie. Many of these quotes are from gfm175.


OMG


Yeah OK. There were only 6. I just assumed it was all you. My mistake. Two people think that's the definition.
05-09-2019 06:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:It describes the difference in radiance for two different bodies. That's all.

Actually it's the absorption minus the radiance of the cooler body.... No radiance from the cooler body is being absorbed by the warmer body

And IBD doubles down...

So what's the equation for the warmer body?

The same as the equation for the colder body. The Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
And what happens when two bodies reach the same temperature? Do two bodies of equal temperature absorb each others radiance?

Nothing. No heat is flowing.
tmiddles wrote:
And you'd confirm that the text book I linked to has it all wrong correct?

Yes.


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
05-09-2019 06:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: I ran your link. I didn't realize I had become so famous on Google!

What you claim is the DEFINITION OF SCIENCE ! has exactly 6 results in Google and it's all you. That is what it is.


Lie. Many of these quotes are from gfm175.


OMG


Yeah OK. There were only 6. I just assumed it was all you. My mistake. Two people think that's the definition.


Argument of ignorance fallacy. There's a lot more than two!


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
05-09-2019 06:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And what happens when two bodies reach the same temperature? Do two bodies of equal temperature absorb each others radiance?

Nothing. No heat is flowing.

Radiance is either absorbed, transmitted (passes through) or reflected.

One or a combination of those three.

So which is it.
Edited on 05-09-2019 07:05
05-09-2019 07:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
Argument of ignorance fallacy. There's a lot more than two!

It's a very very strange definition that pointedly excludes method and practice.

I am well aware of why that personal definition appeals to you since the only thing you've ever done on the board it to disqualify method and practice based on your own weird rules.

Two be one of only two or three people that claims something and then to assert that the burden of proof is on everyone else, is one of the only strategies available to a truly hopeless case.
Edited on 05-09-2019 07:25
05-09-2019 08:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And what happens when two bodies reach the same temperature? Do two bodies of equal temperature absorb each others radiance?

Nothing. No heat is flowing.

Radiance is either absorbed, transmitted (passes through) or reflected.

One or a combination of those three.

So which is it.


I'll take all three doors.


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
05-09-2019 08:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument of ignorance fallacy. There's a lot more than two!

It's a very very strange definition that pointedly excludes method and practice.

Okay...my method for washing my hands is to turn on a faucet and use soap. I am in good practice doing it. It's science!

Science is defined by philosophy. So is religion. I do not define it except by that method. It is the same as Karl Popper. It is the same as Francis Bacon. He once tried to define religion as science to justify his religion.
tmiddles wrote:
I am well aware of why that personal definition appeals to you since the only thing you've ever done on the board it to disqualify method and practice based on your own weird rules.

They are only weird to you because you choose to ignore the reasoning for the definition. You have also given none of your own.

Want to define science? Go ahead. You must define it using your own reasoning. You can't use someone else's reasoning. The argument must be yours. That's basically the only rule on philosophy. As always, logical constructs must be followed. The arguments must be valid ones and free of fallacies.

So define 'science'. Also define 'religion'.

tmiddles wrote:
Two be one of only two or three people that claims something and then to assert that the burden of proof is on everyone else, is one of the only strategies available to a truly hopeless case.

The burden of proof IS on you. It is YOU that is claiming the 2nd law of thermodynamics is falsified.


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
05-09-2019 09:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:It is the same as Karl Popper.

No it is not. Karl Popper identified Falsifiability, the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis, as a basic Scientific Principle, not as the limiting definition of Science. He didn't stop there as you have.

Here's some Karl Popper quotes to muddy your water:
"Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths."
"...science is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. This is why we can say that, in science, we often learn from our mistakes, and why we can speak clearly and sensibly about making progress there."

I HAVE disproven your weird misunderstanding of the 2nd LTD.
Edited on 05-09-2019 09:08
05-09-2019 10:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13275)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:It is the same as Karl Popper.

No it is not.

So you are saying Karl Popper didn't make philosophical arguments??? You are now denying philosophy as well?
tmiddles wrote:
Karl Popper identified Falsifiability,

No, he didn't. He simply used the term. Falsifiability is the ability to test if something is False.
tmiddles wrote:
the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis,

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' hypothesis. A hypothesis stems from an existing theory, such as the null hypothesis.
tmiddles wrote:
as a basic Scientific Principle,
not as the limiting definition of Science.

Not a principle at all. Now you are attempting to deny English. Try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
He didn't stop there as you have.

True. He made several philosophical arguments.
tmiddles wrote:
Here's some Karl Popper quotes to muddy your water:
"Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths."

Contextomy fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
"...science is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. This is why we can say that, in science, we often learn from our mistakes, and why we can speak clearly and sensibly about making progress there."

Contextomy fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
I HAVE disproven your weird misunderstanding of the 2nd LTD.

Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Non-sequitur fallacy. False authority fallacy.
You are just denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is not my opinion. It is a theory of science.


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
05-09-2019 11:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' hypothesis.

Too bad you're not able to correct Karl Popper. Maybe you could have fixed his work for him. "Every application of science is based upon an inference from scientific hypotheses" From: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pg 43

Into the Night wrote:
Contextomy fallacy....Contextomy fallacy....You are just denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is not my opinion. It is a theory of science.

Awe is "Contextomy" your refuge from being dead wrong?

So Mr. Science why oh why do you think it's a law of science that warmer bodies cannot absorb radiance from cooler ones? I don't see that in any version of the 2nd LTD I've read.

You CLAIM it is so prove it.
05-09-2019 15:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:You CLAIM it is so prove it.

Don't be surprised if he does not allow you to shift your burden of support for your claim onto his back. He is not required to prove your unsubstantiated claim false.

You are the one claiming that thermal radiation from a cooler body can be absorbed by a warmer body, and you well know that we are still waiting for your specific repeatable example of such. You know that the ball is in your court.

We've been over this.


.


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
05-09-2019 15:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
You are the one claiming that thermal radiation from a cooler body can be absorbed by a warmer body,

Yes I am. So are the text books, the teachers, everything I can find online. But most appropriately the example of this thread PROVES it.

You and ITN have chosen to ignore it, and have not had any answer to it, but my claim is proven.

I mean really it's the claim of common sense and the totality of scientific work in thermodynamics up till now but sure I'll take a little credit right here and now.

Stop claiming it's the 2nd LTD that thermal radiation from a cooler body can't be absorbed by a warmer body. You guys made that up. It's a really really weird theory and appears nowhere else.

You can pretend it's established or the default all you like and well, that's kind of my real prize here.

A proof of how crazy you two are : )
05-09-2019 16:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote: So are the text books, the teachers, everything I can find online.

That claim of yours is suspect. We have already established your laziness and your unwillingness to perform any research.

So, while you are pondering repeatable examples of thermal radiation from warmer bodies being absorbed by cooler bodies, focus on something that would prove these guys wrong:

https://www.bpihomeowner.org/blog/technically-speaking-principles-heat-transfer

I'm sure they will appreciate your corrections to their services so they can offer greater value to society. Let's be constructive in all this.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 4 of 8<<<23456>>>





Join the debate NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Confirmed: Convection is a Factor in Thermal Energy Flow728-06-2020 04:12
thermal radiation and EM radiation901-03-2020 23:36
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
Black body radiation2919-08-2019 09:11
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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