Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 6 of 8<<<45678>
13-09-2019 01:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
Into the Night wrote:
I've always found studies conducted on unsound principles to be rather boring.


But more importantly unusable right?

Because nothing can be measured according to you.
13-09-2019 05:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I've always found studies conducted on unsound principles to be rather boring.


But more importantly unusable right?

Because nothing can be measured according to you.


Lie, and I've already given you examples.


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
13-06-2020 00:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
Form this thread: link
IBD has repeated something he's brought up often:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You have decided that radiance is not a form of thermal energy transfer IBD.
You are WRONG! There was no decision involved and you don't know what my position is....Still waiting for your demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.

This "challenge" started in this thread where it was originally:
IBdaMann wrote:....devise a repeatable demonstration that focuses on heat flowing from cold to hot and I'll do it...
Where the ploy was to swap the word "heat" with "thermal energy". As heat is the NET FLOW of course, according to my perspective, that is impossible. At not time does IBD pretend that radiance is not a form of thermal energy transfer (as that is the topic of the entire thread it would be odd).
Now IBD has repeatedly either ignored or disqualified the example of this thread, which is each one of us right now absorbing the radiance from the cooler rooms we occupy. He stated:
link
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I have shown that 12 references including 5 textbooks, ...
... but not a single repeatable example.
Let's you and I work together to let nature contradict me. Give me a repeatable experiment of your choosing (no living things, isolate thermal energy flowing via photons from cooler to warmer) and give me the opportunity to confess publicly just how wrong I was. We can do this.
Now note not only does IBD not disqualify radiance he specifically asks for an example of it, acknowleding that "thermal energy flowing via photos" is a thing.
So I offered the proof of a dead person in a room: link Now here I had IBD stumped. This is a WELL documented example in criminal forensics of course with lots of "valid data" which mirror this very topic.

So now IBD needed a new trick which was to deny that radiance was part of thermodynamics at at all: link
IBdaMann wrote:....demonstrate thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body. It can be through space if that makes it easier for you.
tmiddles wrote: A transfer of thermal energy through space is radiance IBD.
What I see is your attempt to redefine thermal energy flow as electromagnetic emission.

Now ITN long gave up trying to win here and has been notably silent on this latest ploy by IBD. Of course how can he back him up? He's said:
Into the Night wrote:
Any description of the methods of heating must include radiant heating as well as convective heating and conductive heating
link

So call it what you will, hiding the ball, moving the goal posts, or maybe "flexible sanity" but I just call it BS.

"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
13-06-2020 10:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 20a2...22e...4c...4b...39g...39f...20b...20w2..20q1...q0q2...20q3...20q5...30...15...8...29...39d...39l...


No argument presented. RQAA. Invalid proofs. Denial of science. Use of false authorities by mischaracterization.


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
13-06-2020 11:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
tmiddles wrote:IBD has repeated something he's brought up often:

It would be quite a feat to bring something up often without repeating it.

tmiddles wrote: This "challenge" started in this thread where it was originally:
IBdaMann wrote:....devise a repeatable demonstration that focuses on heat flowing from cold to hot and I'll do it...

Yes, if you'll recall from this blurb in November, when you were going through your "insistence on non-repeatable demonstrations" phase, that you insisted that some thermal energy flows from cooler bodies to warmer bodies ... but would only ever discuss electromagnetic energy without ever discussing thermal energy.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: That's because "warming" and "heat" refer to an increase in the grand total of thermal energy. ...[snip] ... "WARMING" and "HEAT" refer to the NET effect.

Sure. Of course. Let's take a look at a simple repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body a warmer body ... as a starting point.

Any repeatable example you want.

[prediction: I sense a non-repeatable example forthcoming]


tmiddles wrote:Now IBD has repeatedly either ignored or disqualified the example of this thread, which is each one of us right now absorbing the radiance from the cooler rooms we occupy.

... because no one can get the exact same person from that supposed test in order to perform his or her own tests. It's non-repeatable. You know this.

You are on tap to devise a repeatable test, i.e. that others can arrange and perform in the exact same manner in their own labs, ... of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. Once we have that then we can draw conclusions about all those photons you want to discuss, except that then you will be forced to accept the inescapable conclusion that some photons are apparently not abosrbed, and that all apparent non-absorption strangely aligns exactly with the photons incident to the higher temperature object.

... but we'll get to that once you totally fail to demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. That time will be arbitrarily chosen by me but you have advance notice of what's coming down the pike.

I recommend getting cracking on that repeatable demonstration.

tmiddles wrote:Now note not only does IBD not disqualify radiance he specifically asks for an example of it, acknowleding that "thermal energy flowing via photos" is a thing.

I was clear every time I repeated that I was not interested in any "how" thermal energy flows. You are free to talk about it all you want but I will simply be ignoring everything except for thermal energy flow.

You understand this. This is just a red herring on your part.


tmiddles wrote: So I offered ...

... more discussion on electromagnetic energy and nothing on thermal energy flowing.

tmiddles wrote: So now IBD needed a new trick which was to deny that radiance was part of thermodynamics at at all:

I can clarify that right now. Nope. I don't need that.

In fact, I don't need anything. You are the one who needs a miracle if you are going to pull this off. Good luck.

tmiddles wrote: Now ITN long gave up trying to win here

He was never competing, and you are the only one whose affirmative argument needs support ... and you have thus far failed to support it. Ergo, you are losing at the moment, miserably.

... and it's only going to get worse for you.

tmiddles wrote: ... and has been notably silent on this latest ploy by IBD.

I'd really be interested to learn how your EVASION is somehow a ploy by me.


tmiddles wrote: So call it what you will, hiding the ball, moving the goal posts, or maybe "flexible sanity" but I just call it BS.

Great. So does this mean that you have that repeatable demonstration locked down, ready to divulge?


.


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
13-06-2020 12:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:
You are on tap to devise a repeatable test, i.e. that others can arrange and perform in the exact same manner in their own labs, ... of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.
Excluding radiance as thermal energy "flow" is well, revolutionary!, I'm still waiting for you to explain that.

Do you have any explanation for your changing tune above as I've documented it?

Oh and IBD what happens to the radiance from the walls of the room you're in now when it reaches your skin?
This is what ITN says:link
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this:
What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?
Nothing. Mantra 29.

Isn't that amazing! Here I thought the opitons were absorb, reflect and transmit but ITN found a magic 4th option! I only wish I knew what that meant. Of course you, GG and GFM never answered 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 13-06-2020 12:41
13-06-2020 12:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
tmiddles wrote: Excluding radiance as thermal energy "flow" is well, revolutionary!,

No one is saying that you must exclude it. I just don't want to hear about it. I am not interested in any "how"s. Maybe gfm7175 is interested in your theory about photons but I am specifically interested in only the flow of the thermal enrgy.

tmiddles wrote:Do you have any explanation for your changing tune above as I've documented it?

I'm not aware of having changed any tunes but the answer is that I don't feel any obligation to explain anything.

tmiddles wrote: Isn't that amazing! Here I thought the opitons were absorb, reflect and transmit

I have an idea! How about we DON'T consider you any sort of expert in quantum mechanics? Will that work? Let's assume that you haven't the vaguest clue what happens to photons. Let's run with the notion that you have no idea what "options" there even are. Kosher?

So, let's start there. OK, what's your point?


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-06-2020 13:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:...I am specifically interested in only the flow of the thermal enrgy.
Well this thread is actually all thanks to you IBD! You inspired it when you said this:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.
As you know since this has been repeated ad nauseam.

You've attempted to pretend I've made a claim I haven't. I don't use the word "flow" I think it's a crap word. Vague and meaningless IBDeze. It should be used for water maybe, but never radiance.

What I've shown in this thread is that your assertion, your claim above, is false. Radiance from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer objects.

I'll ask you again and maybe you can tell me why you won't answer:
What happens to the radiance from the walls of the room you're in now, when it reaches your skin?

"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
13-06-2020 22:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
tmiddles wrote: You've attempted to pretend I've made a claim I haven't.

You just made it again through implication ... and the only way you can show that you are correct is to demonstrate SOME thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.

Get to it. Thus far you have done nothing other than pretend to mock me for being WRONG! ... but you NEVER get to actually demonstrating that I'm WRONG!

So right here you made your claim yet AGAIN ... and I'm not the only one waiting for you to back up your claim. You believe that sufficiently repeating your insistence that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is routinely violated amounts to "proof" that it is, in fact, routinely violated.

I have bad news for you. You are going to have to actually DEMONSTRATE it. Now I have told you that you merely need to tell me of your repeatable demonstration and I'll perform the test. If you are right then I'll give you credit on the writeup and we'll both make a shitload of cash. So I'm hoping that you'll pull through on this.

Please get on it, sooner rather than later.


tmiddles wrote:What I've shown in this thread is that your assertion, your claim above, is false.

Right. No assertion of mine in particular, just that I am WRONG!

I am not the one making any claim beyond
1: the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated
2: we do not know the exact nature of the quantum world

You have not shown statement #1 to be false; we are waiting for the demonstration.

You have not even touched statement #2.

tmiddles wrote: Radiance from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer objects.

... and you are going to demonstrate this, yes?

tmiddles wrote: I'll ask you again and maybe you can tell me why you won't answer:

... because at the moment I am focusing on thermal energy. You know this.

We will have PLENTY of time to discuss photons that are not absorbed when you fail utterly to demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.

Maybe a lightbulb will come on and you will realize where this is headed.



[hint: if you really need me to be WRONG! then get cracking on that demonstration]
.


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
14-06-2020 00:00
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2415)
Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed. Radiance isn't thermal energy. Absorbing radiance, does change it to thermal energy, or 'warm' anything.

How many dead bodies in your basement, does it take to keep you warm during the winter months? NYC stores them in U-Haul trucks, I'm sure you could get all you want. Might even get a nasty surprise, if you ever need to rent one...

Really can't believe how long this idiotic debate has been going on...
14-06-2020 00:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...I am specifically interested in only the flow of the thermal enrgy.
Well this thread is actually all thanks to you IBD! You inspired it when you said this:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.
As you know since this has been repeated ad nauseam.

You've attempted to pretend I've made a claim I haven't. I don't use the word "flow" I think it's a crap word. Vague and meaningless IBDeze. It should be used for water maybe, but never radiance.

What I've shown in this thread is that your assertion, your claim above, is false. Radiance from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer objects.

I'll ask you again and maybe you can tell me why you won't answer:
What happens to the radiance from the walls of the room you're in now, when it reaches your skin?


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
14-06-2020 00:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
HarveyH55 wrote:Really can't believe how long this idiotic debate has been going on...

You are spot on ... except that I wouldn't call this much of a debate as it is that I am being called "WRONG!" It doesn't seem to be able to end. I presume that the requirement for it to end will be that I humbly confess on bent knee to being WRONG! ... yet when I try to admit to being WRONG! in order for this to end, it just keep continuing with more of me being WRONG!


Watch ...


Tomoatoes are vegetables!
Communism is based on the law of supply and demand!
Bread is best eaten while forty feet submerged in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Spanish Inquistors handed out D.A.R.E stickers.
Turkish coffee requires three types of rum.
Colin Kaepernick was an original signer of the Declaration of Independence.
Martin Luther King was a KKK Grand Wizard.
Photons prefer Edam cheese.



... ooops! My bad. I publicly admit that I was WRONG!

Can this all end now?


.


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
14-06-2020 03:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:You just made it again through implication ... demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.
You seem to be missing my reply repeatedly. I reject entirely your statement underlined above. It is not my belief nor anything I have said. Your definition of the terms like "flow" and "thermal energy" are yours and yours alone. So no I have not interest in attempting to demonstrate your straw man thesis. Want to ask me again? I don't play RQAA as I know you drink and we can all be forgetful so I'll answer you on this any time you like.

Got it?
14-06-2020 04:38
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(580)
My take is simple if a warm object is placed in a cooler enviroment it will balance out till it is the same temperature and the reverse is true.The Earth fluctuates because we are spinning and we have days and nights so the energy input and cooling is in a state of flux.If I put my chilled beer in a sink full of warm water the cold will transfer to the warm or am I being to simplistic
14-06-2020 05:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
duncan61 wrote:
My take is simple if a warm object is placed in a cooler enviroment it will balance out till it is the same temperature and the reverse is true.The Earth fluctuates because we are spinning and we have days and nights so the energy input and cooling is in a state of flux.If I put my chilled beer in a sink full of warm water the cold will transfer to the warm or am I being to simplistic


No you're right. It is simple because we all have our own experience with it every day.

If a hot object is placed in a cold environment it will cool more quickly than if it is placed in a warmer environment. This is because it is exchanging energy with it's environment through radiance while conduction and convection rates depend on the difference in temperature.
14-06-2020 06:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
IBdaMann wrote: demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.


tmiddles wrote:You seem to be missing my reply repeatedly. I reject entirely your statement underlined above.


I don't care what you reject. If you want me to be WRONG! then you need to demonstrate that. Otherwise it's pointless to engage with you at this point, mainly because you don't have any point besides declaring that I am WRONG!

tmiddles wrote: It is not my belief nor anything I have said.

Yes it is. You are only now changing your tune because you realize that you are WRONG! You realize that you were a moron and now you are somewhat desperate to make the humiliating focus on your lack of education to just go away. You are starting to wish you had perhaps not played hooky and actually paid attention in school so you wouldn't be relegated to taking art as a major where you would be indoctrinated into various socialist and anarchist organizations to be bent over furniture and tooled. You want this all to just end and you don't want to be reminded day in and day out that you are fugging brain dead and ever so regretful of your life choices... so you are now claiming that you never wrote what you wrote in the hopes that I will somehow believe that I was simply mistaken all of these months.

Nope. You were a dishonest shithead and I fully intend to remind you every day of your dishonest attempts to impose your stupid religion onto others from day one. You made your bed so lie in it baby, lie in it.

As it stands, you are a dumbass loser who is forced to believe that thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer as a requirement of your fugged-up religious faith. I'm just going to mock you until you admit that you were WRONG! ... and that you are a brain-dead loser who needs to call upstairs to his mother for some more cookies right about now.

So, have you found two measuring devices of the same manufacturuer/make/model with different tolerances? [secret: I knew you hadn't]

I told you this was going to be fun, and I was right, wasn't I?

tmiddles wrote: Your definition of the terms like "flow" and "thermal energy" are yours and yours alone.

Nope. Your denial is your religion's ... and thus yours as well, because they do your thinking for you and tell you what to believe ... and you OBEY.

So when they tell you to believe in violations of physics ... while they have you bent over furniture, you squeal "Yes! Yes! Give me MORE!"

But I really do appreciate your insinuation that I alone own science ... unfortunately I'm just borrowing it ... and it has no owners.

tmiddles wrote: So no I have not interest in attempting to demonstrate your straw man thesis.

Oh you have interest. You just realize that you can only talk about violating physics, you can't actually do it. The moment I framed the issue as a demonstration that I could perform, you were up chit creek. You know that you don't have any actual science supporting your fugged-up religion and if I'm not going to entertain your attempts to gibber-babble quasi-quantum mechanics drivel ... then the jig is up.

Unfortunately, you are not off the hook. Either specify a demonstration showing that thermal energy can flow from a cooler body to a warmer body or admit that you were WRONG! in saying that I was WRONG! and that you should have actually read what I wrote before vomiting your boolsch't physics violations.

tmiddles wrote: Want to ask me again?

Nope. I want to mock you. I can do this all day. It is very therapeutic and I appreciate you serving as virtually unlimited fodder.

.


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
14-06-2020 07:16
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(580)
Tmiddles is not a warmazombie and has expressed that many times in the short time I have been around.He/She is just debating stuff like me.Bend like the willow IBDM or break like the oak
14-06-2020 08:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
duncan61 wrote: Tmiddles is not a warmazombie

duncan, you are getting on my nerves. If you are going to be an idiot, be an idiot with keepit or tmiddles.

tmiddles is an extreme warmizombie and you are gullible. Let's move on.

duncan61 wrote:He/She is just debating stuff like me.

Incorrect, Buck-o, tmiddles came here to preach a religion that I don't particularly like. He has yet to be honest in any discussion so take your defense of his Marxist trash and try convincing someone else.

duncan61 wrote: Bend like the willow IBDM or break like the oak

Do you mean I should just start believing whatever strangers tell me to believe? Oh, OK, I'll start doing that right away.

.


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
14-06-2020 10:19
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(580)
No Brother.Tolerance is our secret weapon.If only the police man showed some tolerance.I live in the most perfect place at the most perfect time.As a white Engilsh lord living in West Australia I have it all.Enjoy the day.
14-06-2020 12:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.
tmiddles wrote:You seem to be missing my reply repeatedly. I reject entirely your statement underlined above.
...If you want me to be WRONG! then you need to demonstrate that.
This is your statement which is wrong:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
and I've proven it with the example of this thread.

IBdaMann wrote:...you don't have any point besides declaring that I am WRONG!
You and ITN have trolled this board for 5 years interrupting every discussion of Earths thermodynamics by claiming, falsely,that radiance from the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the ground level of Earth below it, because the ground is warmer and it's therefore impossible. That is total nonsense and it is my goal to clarify that to the best of my ability.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: It is not my belief nor anything I have said.
Yes it is. You are only now changing your tune because you realize that you are WRONG!
You're free to quote me but you're pretending I made statements I never did. Why don't we move on to what is correct? It's never about who is correct.

Share your theory on what happens to the radiance from the walls of the room you're in now when it reaches your skin.

You continue to imply you'll answer when you have time to.

"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 14-06-2020 12:40
14-06-2020 22:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
tgoebbles wrote: This is your statement which is wrong:

You are WRONG! as is evidenced by your inability to demonstrate your supposed "counterpoint."

tgoebbles wrote: and I've proven it with the example of this thread.

You still have demonstrated nothing because you cannot, because you are WRONG!

tgoebbles wrote: You and ITN have trolled this board for 5 years interrupting every discussion of Earths thermodynamics by claiming, falsely,that radiance from the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the ground level of Earth below it, because the ground is warmer and it's therefore impossible. That is total nonsense and it is my goal to clarify that to the best of my ability.

All that just to admit that you can't demonstrate your point? You could have saved yoruself a lot of time.

Anyway, for my amusement I will nonetheless grant you a bit more time to flake out of demonstrating your violation of physics before I use your total failure as an illustration for my furtherance of my point.

It's always good to have good usable examples of morons to set me up for success. Of course there will those who will accuse me of having paid you to play the role of the Washington Generals but that can't be helped.

tgoebbles wrote: Why don't we move on to what is correct? It's never about who is correct.

With you, it's never about what is correct, it's about "deniers" being WRONG! So let's move on to why you believe in Global Warming and why any rational adult should believe your fugged-up religion.

.


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
14-06-2020 23:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:
...I will nonetheless grant you a bit more time to flake out of demonstrating your violation of physics before I use your total failure as an illustration for my furtherance of my point.

You do like to repeat yourself. The statement you have attributed to me about "flow" I reject entirely. I won't be doing anything with it. It is a vague, poorly worded statement that does sound like it violates physics. But you'll ask me again won't you.
So you had a point?

You continue to ignore this very simple question:
tmiddles wrote:
....what happens to the radiance from the walls of the room you're in now when it reaches your skin.
Why is that?

"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
15-06-2020 02:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
tgoebbles wrote:The statement you have attributed to me about "flow" I reject entirely.

You are repeating your denial. It doesn't matter that you don't understand what you were gibbering or why you are WRONG! ... I'm going to rake you over the coals for your repeated dishonesty.

tick - tock, tick - tock ...

tgoebbles wrote: I won't be doing anything with it.

I know. You can't. It's a violation of physics. You hosed yourself by doubling down on stupid.

tgoebbles wrote:You continue to ignore this very simple question:

RQAA.

You seem to be the only one on this board who is too stupid to be able to differentiate between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.

Too funny!

So, in order to have a NET flow, you have to have thermal energy flowing in BOTH directions. If thermal energy ONLY flows from warmer to cooler then there is no NET flow; there is only the FLOW. You insist that thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer, establishing a NET flow and we eagerly await your demonstration of this.

Of course, all discussion of other forms of energy are to be ignored because all attention is on your demonstration establishing that NET flow of thermal energy, i.e. thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.

Gosh, we really do live in exciting times.

.


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
15-06-2020 10:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
....what happens to the radiance from the walls of the room you're in now when it reaches your skin.
RQAA. You seem to be the only one on this board who is too stupid to be able to differentiate between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.
I called it radiance. Why can't you answer the question?

IBdaMann wrote:So, in order to have a NET flow, you have to have thermal energy flowing in BOTH directions.
I never said a net flow of thermal energy, I said RADIANCE. "NET THERMAL RADIATION". You know who else has talked about thermal radiance? You IBD:
IBdaMann wrote:Planck's Law is very easy to understand: Temperature determines thermal radiation.

This straw man attempt of pretending I said a net flow of thermal energy was demonstrated anywhere is simply BS. I said then, all along and now that there is NET THERMAL RADIATION. You know what that is because you've described it yourself.

To recap: We are talking about this because ITN/IBD deny that RADIANCE, EM, from the gas atmosphere is capable of being absorbed by warmer matter below it. This false claim ends debates about the thermodynamics of a planet before they begin.

"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 15-06-2020 10:53
15-06-2020 14:35
James___
★★★★★
(3176)
tmiddles wrote:

To recap: We are talking about this because ITN/IBD deny that RADIANCE, EM, from the gas atmosphere is capable of being absorbed by warmer matter below it. This false claim ends debates about the thermodynamics of a planet before they begin.




This is where they usually say Stefan-Boltzmann constant. At the same time, the Moon's surface and not atmosphere can reach 200º F. + and IBDM brought up the surface of the space station. And as I've recently posted, there is a difference between radiance and heat depending on the material.
And sand in the desert becomes hot during the day and cooler at night unlike topsoil which doesn't get as hot or as cold as sand does. Then we have to get into vegetation and it's root systems and underground water.
Some people will say that because of regional variation we can't know anything and that history is a book filled with blank pages. Such is some people's logic tmiddles.
15-06-2020 18:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You seem to be the only one on this board who is too stupid to be able to differentiate between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.
I called it radiance. Why can't you answer the question?

Because it is not thermal energy. You seem to be the only one on this board who is too stupid to be able to differentiate between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.

IBdaMann wrote:So, in order to have a NET flow, you have to have thermal energy flowing in BOTH directions.
I never said a net flow of thermal energy, I said RADIANCE. "NET THERMAL RADIATION". [/quote]
I does not matter how you attempted to weasel, you are well aware of your requirement to address thermal energy, and your avoidance of thermal energy dismisses any and all arguments you have involving temperature, which is the core of all of your arguments. You are dismissed before you even get out of the starting gate.

tgoebbles wrote: You know who else has talked about thermal radiance? You IBD:

I've talked about everything. Stay focused. Do you have a point about temperature that you can express coherently?

tgoebbles wrote: To recap: We are talking about this because ITN/IBD deny that RADIANCE, EM, from the gas atmosphere is capable of being absorbed by warmer matter below it.

The argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot increase the temperature of the warmer ground beneath it. There's that "temperature" word.

Then we have you insisting that the cooler atmosphere can increase the temperature of the warmer ground beneath it. This implies thermal energy flows from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer ground beneath it (the implication doesn't go away simply because you aren't stating it directly).

Ergo, you need to demonstrate that thermal energy can flow from cooler matter to warmer matter ... or all you have are arguments based on one big violation of the 2nd LoT.

All discussion on electromagnetic radiation will be ignored for purposes of discussing this point.

tgoebbles wrote: This false claim ends debates about the thermodynamics of a planet before they begin.

What a moron! Planets don't have their own thermodynamics.

Too funny!


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
15-06-2020 23:07
James___
★★★★★
(3176)
IBdaMann wrote:
tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You seem to be the only one on this board who is too stupid to be able to differentiate between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.
I called it radiance. Why can't you answer the question?

Because it is not thermal energy. You seem to be the only one on this board who is too stupid to be able to differentiate between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.




Um, IBDM, thermal energy is thermal radiation which is electromagnetic radiation. This is to help you with the basics because I happen to like you.


With radiation, objects can transfer thermal energy through a vacuum. This is the type heat transfer by which the sun warms the earth. In this process, thermal energy is transferred in the form of infrared rays.

https://www.wisegeek.com/how-does-matter-transfer-thermal-energy.htm


Thermal radiation is one type of electromagnetic radiation that is talked about in great detail.
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Radiation
15-06-2020 23:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...I called it radiance. Why can't you answer the question?
Because it is not thermal energy.
You seem to imply that means it does not exist? It IS radiance so why are you unable to think about it?

IBdaMann wrote:...you are well aware of your requirement to address thermal energy,...
Well I can't make you think about anything IBD. I'm not "well aware" of anything other than your commitment to not debating this.

IBdaMann wrote:Do you have a point about temperature that you can express coherently?
Yes: when the radiance from the walls of the room you are in reaches your skin it is absorbed and converted to thermal energy.

IBdaMann wrote:The argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot increase the temperature of the warmer ground beneath it. There's that "temperature" word.
As you're well aware I'm focused on this:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

ITN has also said this many times. You saying you made an error in the above claim?

IBdaMann wrote:...we have you insisting that the cooler atmosphere can increase the temperature of the warmer ground beneath it.
You just said "you insisting" implying you are saying I said something. What follows is manufactured by you. Kindly quote me when you want to claim I said something.

I have said that the SUN can increase the temperature. The cooler atmosphere can result in more of that thermal energy being present at ground level.

"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
16-06-2020 01:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.
tmiddles wrote:You seem to be missing my reply repeatedly. I reject entirely your statement underlined above.
...If you want me to be WRONG! then you need to demonstrate that.
This is your statement which is wrong:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
and I've proven it with the example of this thread.

A contrivance is not a proof. Mantra 39j...39g...39f...
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...you don't have any point besides declaring that I am WRONG!
You and ITN have trolled this board for 5 years interrupting every discussion of Earths thermodynamics by claiming, falsely,that radiance from the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by the ground level of Earth below it, because the ground is warmer and it's therefore impossible. That is total nonsense and it is my goal to clarify that to the best of my ability.

You cannot reduce entropy in any system. Mantra 20a2...20e1...20q1...20q2...20q3...25f...
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: It is not my belief nor anything I have said.
Yes it is. You are only now changing your tune because you realize that you are WRONG!
You're free to quote me but you're pretending I made statements I never did. Why don't we move on to what is correct? It's never about who is correct.

Share your theory on what happens to the radiance from the walls of the room you're in now when it reaches your skin.

Mantra 36e...22e...29...
tmiddles wrote:
You continue to imply you'll answer when you have time to.

Mantra 30...29...

No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Invalid proofs. Denial of self.


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
16-06-2020 01:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...I will nonetheless grant you a bit more time to flake out of demonstrating your violation of physics before I use your total failure as an illustration for my furtherance of my point.

You do like to repeat yourself. The statement you have attributed to me about "flow" I reject entirely. I won't be doing anything with it. It is a vague, poorly worded statement that does sound like it violates physics. But you'll ask me again won't you.
So you had a point?

You continue to ignore this very simple question:
tmiddles wrote:
....what happens to the radiance from the walls of the room you're in now when it reaches your skin.
Why is that?


No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of self.


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
16-06-2020 01:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
....what happens to the radiance from the walls of the room you're in now when it reaches your skin.
RQAA. You seem to be the only one on this board who is too stupid to be able to differentiate between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.
I called it radiance. Why can't you answer the question?


No argument presented. 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
16-06-2020 01:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You seem to be the only one on this board who is too stupid to be able to differentiate between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.
I called it radiance. Why can't you answer the question?

Because it is not thermal energy. You seem to be the only one on this board who is too stupid to be able to differentiate between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.




Um, IBDM, thermal energy is thermal radiation which is electromagnetic radiation. This is to help you with the basics because I happen to like you.


With radiation, objects can transfer thermal energy through a vacuum. This is the type heat transfer by which the sun warms the earth. In this process, thermal energy is transferred in the form of infrared rays.

https://www.wisegeek.com/how-does-matter-transfer-thermal-energy.htm


Thermal radiation is one type of electromagnetic radiation that is talked about in great detail.
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Radiation

Thermal energy is not thermal radiation. Electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy or thermal radiation.


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
16-06-2020 01:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...20q1...20q2...20a2...20g...30...lie...17...20q1...20q2...20a2...lie...30...29...30...lie...17...36e...20a2...


No argument presented. Denial of self. RQAA. Paradox V.


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
16-06-2020 02:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...20q1...20q2...20a2...20g...30...lie...17...20q1...20q2...20a2...lie...30...29...30...lie...17...36e...20a2...

No argument presented. Denial of self. RQAA. Paradox V.


You are not only a role model, you are a POWER role model.

That settles it. I need to create an award for best performance in using Into the Night's mantra list ... and I'm guessing that you are going to win this year ... but man are you a champ. Some day when discussion forums become machine learning input for analytics applications, you'll be identified as your own data cluster.

I'll have to get on that. Make a fan club and I'll sign up.

.


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
16-06-2020 02:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...20q1...20q2...20a2...20g...30...lie...17...20q1...20q2...20a2...lie...30...29...30...lie...17...36e...20a2...

No argument presented. Denial of self. RQAA. Paradox V.


You are not only a role model, you are a POWER role model.

That settles it. I need to create an award for best performance in using Into the Night's mantra list ... and I'm guessing that you are going to win this year ... but man are you a champ. Some day when discussion forums become machine learning input for analytics applications, you'll be identified as your own data cluster.

I'll have to get on that. Make a fan club and I'll sign up.

.


Heh. Well I DID create the list.


Good idea for the award. However, it should be awarded to another that is using my list, not myself, since I created the list.


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 16-06-2020 02:49
16-06-2020 02:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...20q1...20q2...20a2...20g...30...lie...17...20q1...20q2...20a2...lie...30...29...30...lie...17...36e...20a2...

No argument presented. Denial of self. RQAA. Paradox V.


You are not only a role model, you are a POWER role model.

That settles it. I need to create an award for best performance in using Into the Night's mantra list ... and I'm guessing that you are going to win this year ... but man are you a champ. Some day when discussion forums become machine learning input for analytics applications, you'll be identified as your own data cluster.

I'll have to get on that. Make a fan club and I'll sign up.

.


Heh. Well I DID create the list.


Good idea for the award. However, it should be awarded to another that is using my list, not myself, since I created the list.

Unfortunately, the only other person who uses your list is me (occasionally) and talk about awkward ... I would rather just present you the award for being such an outstanding role model. We all owe you our gratitude for "raising the bar" on posting efficiency.

Well done.

On that point, what color should it be? I'm open to suggestions.

.


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
16-06-2020 03:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...20q1...20q2...20a2...20g...30...lie...17...20q1...20q2...20a2...lie...30...29...30...lie...17...36e...20a2...

No argument presented. Denial of self. RQAA. Paradox V.


You are not only a role model, you are a POWER role model.

That settles it. I need to create an award for best performance in using Into the Night's mantra list ... and I'm guessing that you are going to win this year ... but man are you a champ. Some day when discussion forums become machine learning input for analytics applications, you'll be identified as your own data cluster.

I'll have to get on that. Make a fan club and I'll sign up.

.


Heh. Well I DID create the list.


Good idea for the award. However, it should be awarded to another that is using my list, not myself, since I created the list.

Unfortunately, the only other person who uses your list is me (occasionally) and talk about awkward ... I would rather just present you the award for being such an outstanding role model. We all owe you our gratitude for "raising the bar" on posting efficiency.

Well done.

On that point, what color should it be? I'm open to suggestions.

.

White (metallic?), if you can get it to come out looking decent, else green.

Symbolism of white: Reduction of excessive text and removal of colorful insults.
Symbolism of green: Reduction of precious bits use on the internet and ecologically friendly.


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 16-06-2020 03:15
19-06-2020 10:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...I called it radiance. Why can't you answer the question?
Because it is not thermal energy.
You seem to imply that means it does not exist? It IS radiance so why are you unable to think about it?

IBdaMann wrote:...you are well aware of your requirement to address thermal energy,...
Well I can't make you think about anything IBD. I'm not "well aware" of anything other than your commitment to not debating this.

IBdaMann wrote:Do you have a point about temperature that you can express coherently?
Yes: when the radiance from the walls of the room you are in reaches your skin it is absorbed and converted to thermal energy.

IBdaMann wrote:The argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot increase the temperature of the warmer ground beneath it. There's that "temperature" word.
As you're well aware I'm focused on this:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

ITN has also said this many times. You saying you made an error in the above claim?

IBdaMann wrote:...we have you insisting that the cooler atmosphere can increase the temperature of the warmer ground beneath it.
You just said "you insisting" implying you are saying I said something. What follows is manufactured by you. Kindly quote me when you want to claim I said something.

I have said that the SUN can increase the temperature. The cooler atmosphere can result in more of that thermal energy being present at ground level.

"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
19-06-2020 17:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7474)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...I called it radiance. Why can't you answer the question?
Because it is not thermal energy.
You seem to imply that means it does not exist? It IS radiance so why are you unable to think about it?

I have not implied that electromagnetic energy does not exist, but you nonetheless inferred it ... which means that you have piss-poor reading comprehension. This explains why you aren't able to understand me when I tell you that *I* am simply focusing on thermal energy. You are welcome to discuss all the electromagnetic energy that your heart desires but I will be ignoring everything that is not about thermal energy.

Thus far you have not been able to discuss thermal energy so I have had to ignore everything you have written. You understand how that works, right?


tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Do you have a point about temperature that you can express coherently?
Yes: when the radiance from the walls of the room you are in reaches your skin it is absorbed and converted to thermal energy.

If this exchange weren't so long I'd be tempted to put this in my signature. I asked you if you had a point about temperature, you said "Yes" and then made a point about completely different things. Too funny.

tgoebbles wrote: As you're well aware I'm focused on this:

You are locked into quoting me (without including the context of the discussion) but you have absolutely no intention of discussing it. I have tried for not quite a full year but you have made it clear that you don't want to go down that road for fear that your WACKY religion will be embarrassingly shattered.


tgoebbles wrote:I have said that the SUN can increase the temperature.

What a stupidly ambiguous statement.

Are you saying that the sun "can" but sometimes doesn't?

Are you saying that the sun can increase the temperature over and above what the temperature would be with only the sun?

What could you possibly mean by that statement that isn't utterly stupid?

tgoebbles wrote: The cooler atmosphere can result in more of that thermal energy being present at ground level.

Nope. Violation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

I also notice that you are still denying the daytime side of the moon. Don't think that I didn't notice. Let's remind everyone else:

For those of you who are new to this forum and for those who have forgotten, tgoebbles does not recognize a daytime side of the moon because it exceeds 240F (120C). This goes against his religious dogma that requires him to believe atmospheres make a planet's surface specifically warmer ... and that black people cannot be racist. The fact is that *no* daytime temperature anywhere on earth ever gets anywhere close to the oven temperatures on the daytime side of the moon which has no atmosphere. tgoebbles cannot reconcile this reality so he deludes himself into denying it.

There ... I have refreshed everyone's memory.


.


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
19-06-2020 22:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
tmiddles wrote:...Mantras 16c...30...10b...10h...20a2...20q1...20q2...20q3...paradox V...30...29...38a...36e...29...20a2...20a4...


No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Redefinition fallacies. Paradox. Lies.


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
Page 6 of 8<<<45678>





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