Remember me
▼ Content

Nils-Axel Mörner



Page 4 of 10<<<23456>>>
07-05-2020 01:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
JackFou wrote: If I give you $100 and you give me $75, the result is a net flow of $25 from me to you.

If you wire $25 into Into the Night's account, then he never gave you $75 and you never gave him $100. The $25 is a flow, not a "net flow."

It's really not very hard to understand.

JackFou wrote: Even if what you say *were* true (it isn't), it would still not prevent a warmer body absorbing photons from a colder body.

You'll apparently do anything to avoid talking about thermal energy when the topic is thermal energy. It always has to be electromagnetic energy.

Like I said, let me know when you can come around to staying focused.



JackFou wrote: Due to the statistical nature of thermodynamics,

Nope. Too funny! Let me catch my breath.

You are confusing quantum mechanics with thermodynamics. Thermodynamics laws are principles that are applied to quantum mechanics, not the other way around.

You're winging this, aren't you. Wikipedia is coming up short, isn't it?

Too funny.


.
Attached image:

07-05-2020 04:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Then demonstrate it.

It has already been demonstrated.

Lie. Demonstrated it.
JackFou wrote:
I'm just telling you how to do it, in case you don't believe me and prefer to independently verify through your own experiment that what I'm saying is true.

Describe this 'experiment' of yours.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But that difference is never negative. You keep arguing that you can use a negative difference.


Im not at all talking about a "negative difference".

Yes you are. Lie.
JackFou wrote:
What I'm saying is that once an atom has absorbed a photon of, say, 13.6 eV and transitioned to an excited state, the atom can then subsequently absorb another photon of, say, 1.9 eV and transition to an *even higher* excited state.

If you look carefully, you'll see that 1.9 eV is indeed smaller than 13.6 eV.
The difference in energy between the higher excited state and the lower excited state is +1.9 eV. No "negative difference" needed.

Incompatible units. Electron volts are not energy states of electrons. Math error.
JackFou wrote:
This is exactly what happens in the case of hydrogen. You can find so-called "Balmer absorption lines" in the spectra of stars.

Incompatible units. Set<->scalar error.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But it is related to temperature. Now you are trying to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It states: r=C*e*t^4
Radiance is proportional to temperature, never inversely proportional.

The definition of a black body is that it *must* be able absorb photons of *all* wavelengths. Therefore, a hotter black body *must* be able to absorb incoming thermal radiation from a colder black body. Otherwise it would violate the definition of a black body.

There is no second black body. The ideal black body is a reference point, not an actual body. There are no actual black bodies. Only 'gray' ones'. They are partially reflective.

You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You are still denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


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
07-05-2020 04:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:
It's really not very hard to understand.
Simple question for IBD/ITN: Radiance from the wall of the room you are in right now reaches your skin. What happens to it?

JackFou see the overly verbose deluge? Their goal is to kill debate by frustrating us. Once defeated they start to run. They have been ducking me for months now.3 ducked topics by ITN/IBD

Into the Night wrote:
No atom will accept a photon that has less energy than the atom itself already has. The light is either reflected or passes right on through the atom. Not all photons are equal. See Planck's law.

"Planck's Law" says no such thing first of all: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s680.php#post_53548

What ITN/IBD repeatedly say, heres IBD's version:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
Is that it would be defying the laws of physics if photons/radiance from a cooler body were absorbed by a warmer one. Except there are NO laws of physics that say this.

The "Planck's Law" they seem to invoke which states that radiance from cooler objects is not absorbed has never been discovered. Also Max Planck thoroughly debunks them here:
Max Planck debunks IBD and ITN

Into the Night wrote:Demonstrated it.

We know, empirically, that radiance from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer ones. My proof is here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

IBdaMann wrote:...even inanimate objects are smart enough to not confuse thermal energy with electromagnetic energy.
IBD has a "unique" perspective that defies every textbook or online resource you can find. In his world "Heat" is part of a warmazombie conspiracy and is a word with no meaning and "Radiance" is not a part of thermodynamics at all. So "Radiant Heat" just switches his brain off. Because it's a debate he long since lost.

IBdaMann wrote:
"Heat" has no definition. It is the word that scientifically illiterate warmizombie morons use because they have no clue what they mean by the WACKY religious dogma they regurgitate.
link

Into the Night wrote:
Incompatible units. Electron volts are not energy states of electrons. Math error.
So ITN are you saying that a photon can have LESS energy but yet have a HIGHER energy state? Wouldn't it be simpler to end the liable you're committing against Max Planck and link to his writing? Because he does not have your back on this.

"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
07-05-2020 04:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:Simple question for IBD/ITN: Radiance from the wall of the room you are in right now reaches your skin. What happens to it?

Let's table that for the moment and shift back to thermal energy.

You are in a cool room. There is thermal energy in the walls and and in your body. How is it flowing specifically between the walls and your body?

tmiddles wrote: The "Planck's Law" they seem to invoke ...

You view science as a form of voodoo magic that is "invoked," yes?


.


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
07-05-2020 05:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
It's really not very hard to understand.
Simple question IBD: Radiance from the wall of the room you are in right now reaches your skin. What happens to it?

RQAA. Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
JackFou see the overly verbose deluge? Their goal is to kill debate by frustrating us. Once defeated they start to run. They have been ducking me for months
Mantra 17.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No atom will accept a photon that has less energy than the atom itself already has. The light is either reflected or passes right on through the atom. Not all photons are equal. See Planck's law.

"Planck's Law" says no such thing first of all
Yes it does. Denying Planck's law won't help you. You are just denying science again. Photons do not have equal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
What ITN/IBD repeatedly say, heres IBD's version:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
Is that it would be defying the laws of physics if photons/radiance from a cooler body were absorbed by a warmer one. Except there are NO laws of physics that say this.
Lie. The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Mantras 20a2...
tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 20e1...30...20q...16b...7...20q...20a2...25f...4e...25g...16c...30...7...


No arguments presented. Denial of science. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 07-05-2020 05:16
07-05-2020 08:06
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
Describe this 'experiment' of yours.

I have described it. Go read my post again.
For convenience, I suggest that you can either use a run-of-the-mill atomic absorption spectroscopy setup or you can go out and look for absorption lines in spectra of stars.

Into the Night wrote:
Incompatible units. Electron volts are not energy states of electrons. Math error.

Now you're just being silly.
The difference between two energy states necessarily has to be an amount of energy. Otherwise they wouldn't be energy states, would they.
Therefore, the difference between two energy states can be expressed in any unit of energy you chose. eV is one unit of energy. If you prefer, I can give you the numbers in a different unit of energy, say, joules instead.

Into the Night wrote:
There is no second black body. The ideal black body is a reference point, not an actual body. There are no actual black bodies. Only 'gray' ones'. They are partially reflective.

Any real body will be an approximation of an ideal black body. Depending on the body that is either a good or a bad approximation.
I am asking you to consider two ideal black bodies as a thought experiment because that makes it very clear and unambiguous.
If that is somehow too challenging for you, take two gray bodies with emissivities close to unity instead. If you take two such gray bodies, they will still both absorb and emit a broad spectrum of EM frequencies. If the warmer body can transfer heat to the colder body via thermal radiation, this means that there exist necessarily at least *some* shared frequencies at which both bodies can absorb and emit radiation. Therefore, the warmer body can also absorb *some* incoming thermal radiation from the colder body.
Edited on 07-05-2020 08:17
07-05-2020 08:13
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
Demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. Everything having to do with electromagnetic energy will be summarily ignored. You can use thermal radiation to help you in your ponderings and musings, but for the demonstration, thermal energy will be all that is examined. Get to it Mr. Genius.


This is getting a bit out of hand so I will focus exclusively on the question of thermal energy flow for now to keep things to a reasonable length. We can go back later and re-visit water flow and current flow and other funny deflections you've tried to pull, if you like.

So in order for me to "demonstrate" thermal energy flow in *any* direction, we need to agree on a mechanism by which thermal energy is transferred between two objects.
It seems that you don't like my suggestion for a mechanism because you keep babbling on about a supposed false equivalency between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy (although you do acknowledge elsewhere that the conservation of energy doesn't prohibit the conversion of one form of energy into another from of energy).
If you don't like my mechanism, suggest your own mechanism.
If we cannot agree together on a mechanism that we both find plausible, this whole discussion is pointless.
So I'm asking you again: How does, according to you, thermal energy get transferred from A to B through space, across a vacuum, mechanistically on an atomic/molecular scale?
07-05-2020 09:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
JackFou wrote:We can go back later and re-visit water flow and current flow and other funny deflections you've tried to pull, if you like.

Oh, that's right Mr. Genius, *I* am the one deflecting. You are the one meting out the brilliance. I can't wait to get thoroughly charred by the magnificence of your intellect.

JackFou wrote: So in order for me to "demonstrate" thermal energy flow in *any* direction, we need to agree on a mechanism by which thermal energy is transferred between two objects.

Absolutely not. All we need is to measure the amount of thermal energy at both ends over time, and measuring temperature will do.

If I have two tanks of water, each with differing quantities and I allow water to flow from one tank to the other, all I need to measure is the initial quantity of water in each tank, and then monitor the change in quantity in each tank as the water is flowing and that will tell me exactly the rate of water flow between the two tanks.

I can measure voltage between two points as current flows.

The mechanism in any case is immaterial.

JackFou wrote:It seems that you don't like my suggestion for a mechanism because you keep babbling on about a supposed false equivalency between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy (although you do acknowledge elsewhere that the conservation of energy doesn't prohibit the conversion of one form of energy into another from of energy).

Correct, except it is you who is constantly babbling and gibbering and saying nothing of any informative value. I'm sure though that at the end of all this you will not disappoint and will amaze family and friends with your bold demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. I don't know about you but I plan to sell tickets!

Get to it, genius.



.


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
07-05-2020 09:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Describe this 'experiment' of yours.

I have described it. Go read my post again.

Lie.
JackFou wrote:
For convenience, I suggest that you can either use a run-of-the-mill atomic absorption spectroscopy setup or you can go out and look for absorption lines in spectra of stars.

Math error. Set<->scalar.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Incompatible units. Electron volts are not energy states of electrons. Math error.

Now you're just being silly.
The difference between two energy states necessarily has to be an amount of energy. Otherwise they wouldn't be energy states, would they.

Math error. Incompatible units.
JackFou wrote:
Therefore, the difference between two energy states can be expressed in any unit of energy you chose. eV is one unit of energy. If you prefer, I can give you the numbers in a different unit of energy, say, joules instead.

Math error. Incompatible units. Electron volts are not energy states.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no second black body. The ideal black body is a reference point, not an actual body. There are no actual black bodies. Only 'gray' ones'. They are partially reflective.

Any real body will be an approximation of an ideal black body. Depending on the body that is either a good or a bad approximation.

Nope. A gray body is not an ideal black body.
JackFou wrote:
I am asking you to consider two ideal black bodies as a thought experiment because that makes it very clear and unambiguous.

Contrivance.
JackFou wrote:
If that is somehow too challenging for you, take two gray bodies with emissivities close to unity instead. If you take two such gray bodies, they will still both absorb and emit a broad spectrum of EM frequencies. If the warmer body can transfer heat to the colder body via thermal radiation, this means that there exist necessarily at least *some* shared frequencies at which both bodies can absorb and emit radiation. Therefore, the warmer body can also absorb *some* incoming thermal radiation from the colder body.

Nope. It can't. You can't heat a warmer body with a colder one. Just because a body can absorb a frequency of light doesn't mean it actually does. No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has.


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
07-05-2020 09:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. Everything having to do with electromagnetic energy will be summarily ignored. You can use thermal radiation to help you in your ponderings and musings, but for the demonstration, thermal energy will be all that is examined. Get to it Mr. Genius.


This is getting a bit out of hand

Evasion. Answer his very simply question.
JackFou wrote:
so I will focus exclusively on the question of thermal energy flow for now to keep things to a reasonable length. We can go back later and re-visit water flow and current flow and other funny deflections you've tried to pull, if you like.

There is no such thing as 'net flow'. It doesn't matter if it's a current in a river, a current in a wire, or heat.
JackFou wrote:
So in order for me to "demonstrate" thermal energy flow in *any* direction, we need to agree on a mechanism by which thermal energy is transferred between two objects.
It seems that you don't like my suggestion for a mechanism because you keep babbling on about a supposed false equivalency between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy (although you do acknowledge elsewhere that the conservation of energy doesn't prohibit the conversion of one form of energy into another from of energy).
If you don't like my mechanism, suggest your own mechanism.
If we cannot agree together on a mechanism that we both find plausible, this whole discussion is pointless.

This discussion is pointless, because you insist on using the buzzword 'net flow' and 'net heat'. Neither exist.
JackFou wrote:
So I'm asking you again: How does, according to you, thermal energy get transferred from A to B through space, across a vacuum, mechanistically on an atomic/molecular scale?

Radiant heat. You already knew this. Does not show a cold body heating a warmer one.


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 07-05-2020 09:33
07-05-2020 09:44
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
Math error. Incompatible units

The energy difference between two energy states is in itself equal to an amount of energy. This difference is equal to the amount of energy it takes to get from state a to state b.
If you cannot even acknowledge that, we're done here.

Into the Night wrote:
Radiant heat. You already knew this. Does not show a cold body heating a warmer one.

You're the one with buzzwords. I'm asking for a *mechanistic* description of radiative energy transfer between two objects on an atomic scale.
I am claiming that radiant heat transfer happens via the exchange of electromagnetic radiation. If you don't agree with that, provide an alternative mechanism that I can work with.
If you *do* agree with that, please explain it to your friend IBdaMan because he keeps telling me it's not so without providing an alternative explanation.
07-05-2020 11:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Math error. Incompatible units

The energy difference between two energy states is in itself equal to an amount of energy.

Math error. Incompatible units. An energy state of an electron is not the same as an electron volt.
JackFou wrote:
This difference is equal to the amount of energy it takes to get from state a to state b.
If you cannot even acknowledge that, we're done here.

We are done here, because you insist on incompatible units.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Radiant heat. You already knew this. Does not show a cold body heating a warmer one.

You're the one with buzzwords.

Inversion fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
I'm asking for a *mechanistic* description of radiative energy transfer between two objects on an atomic scale.

RQAA.
JackFou wrote:
I am claiming that radiant heat transfer happens via the exchange of electromagnetic radiation. If you don't agree with that, provide an alternative mechanism that I can work with.

There is no 'exchange' of electromagnetic radiation. Light is not heat. Only light that is absorbed and converted to thermal energy is heat. There is no such thing as 'net heat', or 'net flow'.
JackFou wrote:
If you *do* agree with that, please explain it to your friend IBdaMan because he keeps telling me it's not so without providing an alternative explanation.

He already has explained it. So have I. 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
Edited on 07-05-2020 11:01
07-05-2020 11:05
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:

The mechanism in any case is immaterial.


A mechanism, albeit "immaterial", needs to exist for something to happen. If there is no mechanism by which something can happen, it cannot happen.

I have explained to you what I consider a plausible mechanism for radiative energy transfer. You don't accept my mechanism as valid. Therefore, I ask you again, explain to me a mechanism which you find plausible. Then we can continue.
Edited on 07-05-2020 11:10
07-05-2020 11:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
Hey Jack just FYI:
Into the Night wrote:
He already has explained it. So have I. RQAA.
ITN is a shameless liar about claiming he answered something at some point. Just his favorite way to exist a debate. Pretty much means you won.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Simple question for IBD/ITN: Radiance from the wall of the room you are in right now reaches your skin. What happens to it?

Let's table that for the moment and shift back to thermal energy.
Let's not. You and ITN are talking about photons. Claims made in this very thread.
Into the Night wrote:No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has.
So? What happens to it? I'll help you with a multiple choice:
1- Absorbed
2- Refelcted
3- Transmitted (passes right through you)

Is there some reason you cannot answer that question?

IBdaMann wrote:
You are in a cool room. There is thermal energy in the walls and and in your body. How is it flowing specifically between the walls and your body?
You are claiming that radiance is not part of thermodynamics. It is primarily through radiance that thermal energy relocates from the walls to your body and from your body to the walls. You tell me IBD if you put blinders on to radiance it must be, for you, as though thermal energy is magically teleporting from point A to point B. The answer is that energy from the walls which was initially thermal energy, ends up being thermal energy in your body, and vice versa. It's a back and forth but radiance is the medium for it.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The "Planck's Law" they seem to invoke ...

You view science as a form of voodoo magic that is "invoked," yes?
No I view it as a cumulative and collaborative process where you always use citation citation citation to show where your references are coming from. You and ITN pretend you are casting spells from a hidden book.

Case in point:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
"Planck's Law" says no such thing first of all
Yes it does.
Just a lie. Easily proven with a citation. Planck was a writer after all.

JackFou wrote:...the difference between two energy states can be expressed in any unit of energy you chose. eV is one unit of energy. If you prefer, I can give you the numbers in a different unit of energy, say, joules instead.
I just understood that for the first time reading your answer JackFou. Thanks!

JackFou wrote:Therefore, the warmer body can also absorb *some* incoming thermal radiation from the colder body.
If the ITN/IBD scenario were true, and a warmer body got nothing from a cooler body until the temps were equalized then reaching thermal equilibrium would look nothing like this:

Since the cooler body would have no influence whatsoever on the warmer body.

JackFou wrote:How does, according to [IBD], thermal energy get transferred from A to B through space, across a vacuum, mechanistically on an atomic/molecular scale?
IBdaMann wrote: If I have two tanks of water,...
Cute IBD. Why are you finding it necessary to depart from thermal energy? I believe you "summarily dismiss" such attempts on your end. So no, not water, thermal energy. How does it get around through space?

IBdaMann wrote:The mechanism in any case is immaterial.
In that case let's use radiance!

JackFou wrote:
I am claiming that radiant heat transfer happens via the exchange of electromagnetic radiation.
How about we agree on teleportation to make IBD happy?

Now one thing here, the frozen dead body in the room, that ITN/IBD have NEVER even attempted to address is this: The radiance of a human body is roughly 700 to 800 watts. It is not possible for a human to maintain their own body temperature through digestion alone if they lost this much. So how? If it's not possible to attain thermal energy from cooler surroundings, can this be? You could have an alternative explanation to radiance from the room but you can't have nothing. Stefn-Boltzmann dictates the radiance from a body, including a human body.

"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 07-05-2020 11:10
07-05-2020 11:08
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
Math error. Incompatible units. An energy state of an electron is not the same as an electron volt.

You're not picking up the words I'm saying. I'm talking about the *energy difference* between two energy states.

In order to move from one energy state to a higher energy state, an electron needs to absorb a defined amount of energy. In the case of the hydrogen atom, the amount of energy the electron needs to absorb to move from the lowest electronic state to the next highest state is 13.6 eV. The amount of energy the electron needs to absorb to move from the first excited electronic state to the next highest state is 1.9 eV.

If you chose to observe the absorption spectrum of hydrogen, you will find that hydrogen atoms indeed absorb photons of 1.9 eV. The only way this is possible is if the atom first absorbed 13.6 eV to transition from the electronic ground state to the first excited state and subsequently transitions from the first excited state to the next highest excited state.

No amount of trying to play semantic games on your end can change this.
Edited on 07-05-2020 11:25
07-05-2020 11:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Math error. Incompatible units. An energy state of an electron is not the same as an electron volt.

You're not picking up the words I'm saying. I'm talking about the *energy difference* between two energy states.

Math error. Incompatible units. An energy state of an electron is not the same as an electron volt. The energy state of an electron is not thermal energy.
JackFou wrote:
In order to move from one energy state to a higher energy state, an electron needs to absorb a defined amount of energy. In the case of the hydrogen atom, the amount of energy the electron needs to absorb to move from the lowest electronic state to the next highest state is 13.6 eV. The amount of energy the electron needs to absorb to move from the first excited electronic state to the next highest state is 1.9 eV.

Math error. Incompatible units. Electron volts and electron states are not thermal energy.
JackFou wrote:
If you chose to observe the absorption spectrum of hydrogen, you will find that hydrogen atoms absorb photons of 1.9 eV.
The only way this is possible is if the atom first absorbed 13.6 eV to transition from the electronic ground state to the first excited state and subsequently transitions from the first excited state to the next highest excited state.

Math error. Electron volts and electron states are not thermal energy.
JackFou wrote:
No amount of trying to play semantic games on your end can change this.

It is YOU playing semantic games. Inversion 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
07-05-2020 11:30
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
Math error. Incompatible units. Electron volts and electron states are not thermal energy.

Really? Electron volts are not a unit of energy?
There is no dedicated unit for "thermal energy". Energy is energy, regardless of whether you express it as eV or joule or calories or whatever unit you want. There is nothing special about "thermal" energy that requires it to have a different unit than other forms of energy.

Which is the unit of thermal energy, according to you? I'll happily recalculate all numbers given above to your preferred unit if that helps you.
Edited on 07-05-2020 11:33
07-05-2020 17:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
JackFou wrote:There is no dedicated unit for "thermal energy".

The de facto standard is to measure temperature.

So just come up with a valid conversion from electronvolts to degrees Kelvin (which are incompatible units) for your amazing impending demonstration and we'll go from there.

.
07-05-2020 18:43
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:There is no dedicated unit for "thermal energy".

The de facto standard is to measure temperature.


See? All you had to do to evade my argument was to redefine "thermal energy" to mean "temperature".

Nice job, very creative... Except of course that "Kelvin" is not a unit of energy. Temperature is not energy.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of a mechanism for radiative heat transfer by the way. I'm sure it's gonna be amazing after all this waiting time!
07-05-2020 19:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Math error. Incompatible units. Electron volts and electron states are not thermal energy.

Really? Electron volts are not a unit of energy?

Read it again, dumbass.
JackFou wrote:
There is no dedicated unit for "thermal energy".

Yes there is.
JackFou wrote:
Energy is energy, regardless of whether you express it as eV or joule or calories or whatever unit you want.

So now you want to say kinetic energy has a temperature, that electron volts have a temperature, that light has a temperature, that chemical energy has a temperature, that potential energy has a temperature?? You are seriously trying to make the argument that all these forms of energy are exactly the SAME???
JackFou wrote:
There is nothing special about "thermal" energy that requires it to have a different unit than other forms of energy.

You really ARE trying to say all these forms of energy are exactly the same! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
JackFou wrote:
Which is the unit of thermal energy, according to you?

The base unit of any energy is the Joule, but you are really seriously trying to equivocate all these forms of energy as the same! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
JackFou wrote:
I'll happily recalculate all numbers given above to your preferred unit if that helps you.

Math error. Unit incompatibility. Thermal is not electromagnetic energy. Potential energy is not thermal energy. Electron volts is not thermal energy.

Average thermal energy is measured as a temperature. NONE of the other forms of energy have a temperature at 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
07-05-2020 19:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:There is no dedicated unit for "thermal energy".

The de facto standard is to measure temperature.


See? All you had to do to evade my argument was to redefine "thermal energy" to mean "temperature".

Temperature is average thermal energy. He is not evading. YOU are making a completely ridiculous argument by equivocating all forms of energy are the same.

Tell me, genius. What is the temperature of one volt? What is the temperature of an H-O-H chemical bond? What is the temperature of a gallon of gasoline? What is the temperature of a 10kg weight suspended 10m above the ground? What is the temperature of a radio wave broadcast at 1Mhz? What is the temperature of one watt?
JackFou wrote:
Nice job, very creative... Except of course that "Kelvin" is not a unit of energy. Temperature is not energy.

Temperature is the average thermal energy of a substance. Kelvin is a unit of that average energy.
JackFou wrote:
I'm still waiting for an explanation of a mechanism for radiative heat transfer by the way. I'm sure it's gonna be amazing after all this waiting time!

There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'. Such a buzzword is redundant. Heat IS transfer. It's like you are saying "thermal energy transfer transfer".


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 07-05-2020 20:01
07-05-2020 22:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
There is no dedicated unit for "thermal energy".

Yes there is.

Calories ?
British thermal unit ?
Those are just the joule ITN. Jack already suggested Joules.
You object to using the joule to represent thermal energy?

Into the Night wrote:
Kelvin is a unit of that average energy.
how many joules per Kelvin? Nonsense question since Kelvin is not a unit of energy by itself. You only suggest it to stall and frustrate the debate.
Edited on 07-05-2020 22:23
07-05-2020 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
There is no dedicated unit for "thermal energy".

Yes there is.

Calories ?
British thermal unit ?
Those are just the joule ITN. Jack already suggested Joules.
You object to using the joule to represent thermal energy?

Into the Night wrote:
Kelvin is a unit of that average energy.
how many joules per Kelvin? Nonsense question since Kelvin is not a unit of energy by itself. You only suggest it to stall and frustrate the debate.


Ah. So you too have decided to argue that all forms of energy are the same.

What morons!

Mantra 20g...29.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 07-05-2020 23:13
07-05-2020 22:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
Into the Night wrote:...So you too have decided to argue that all forms of energy are the same....


What are YOU saying the appropriate unit of energy is ITN? I'm saying it is of course the Joule. If fact we've talked with joules being accepted in the past because it's the standard choice.

And if you are going to say Kelvin (please do I want the quote) then I'd love for you to describe the amount of energy in "One Kelvin of Energy"

Edited on 07-05-2020 22:59
07-05-2020 23:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 20g...29...


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
07-05-2020 23:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 20g...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.
ITN what unit would you use? You haven't said.
Edited on 07-05-2020 23:20
07-05-2020 23:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted lie...Mantra 20g...29...


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
07-05-2020 23:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted lie...Mantra 20g...29...


No argument presented. RQAA.


Well let's hear from you anyway link:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second.

100% wrong.
A Joule per second is a watt. You have it the wrong way around. You do not understand physics. This is plain to anybody who does.
You also think that "heat" is about energy flow. Not if you are measuring it in just Joules it is not.
Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt.

link
Into the Night wrote:
...heat can be measured in watts, or joules per second. It is the movement of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. It doesn't matter if it is flowing through styrofoam, glass, copper, the atmosphere, or through open space.

link
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So does joule work as the best unit for "Thermal Energy"
Yes.


All quotes accurate and linked to the posts.

Hey ITN maybe you could talk a bit more about Heat through empty space being measured in joules.
Edited on 07-05-2020 23:39
08-05-2020 00:51
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
So now you want to say kinetic energy has a temperature, that electron volts have a temperature, that light has a temperature, that chemical energy has a temperature, that potential energy has a temperature?? You are seriously trying to make the argument that all these forms of energy are exactly the SAME???


Talking about what energy is and isn't and what forms of energy exist or don't exist generally drifts off into pointless philosophical arguments pretty quickly.

I'll say this: There are really only two types of energy -- kinetic energy and potential energy. There is motion and there is the potential to have motion. What you call "thermal energy" is really just kinetic energy of atoms and molecules bumping into each other. So if want to claim that thermal energy has a temperature, that's equivalent to saying that kinetic energy has a temperature, which you yourself already said is not true. So you're contradicting yourself here.

There are practical reasons to distinguish more forms of energy like thermal, mechanical, chemical etc. but it's still all just variations on kinetic and potential energies.
If you want to consider more forms of energy for practical reasons, then for practical purposes they're not the same -- because why else would you then want to distinguish them in the first place. However, there is a certain equivalence between them because I can transform energy from one form to another.

If I take for example a piece of metal and bang on it with a hammer, I'm converting "chemical energy" into "mechanical energy" into "thermal energy". If I bang on it hard enough for long enough, the piece of metal will eventually start glowing red hot because "thermal energy" is constantly converted into "electromagnetic energy" due to the atoms and electrons in the metal bumping into each other -- and I can just as well transform "electromagnetic energy" back into "thermal energy" through absorption.
That is exactly how I claim radiative energy transfer happens which you two clowns have repeatedly denied to be true.

Are all forms of energy therefore the same? No, that does not follow from anything I said.
However, one thing that all forms of energy have in common -- no matter how many you chose to define -- is that they're expressed in units of energy. eV, joule, calories, kWh -- whatever floats your boat.
No energy has the unit Kelvin, not even thermal energy.

Into the Night wrote:
Temperature is the average thermal energy of a substance. Kelvin is a unit of that average energy.


Okay, so let me recapitulate our journey. We started with energy. You claimed that an atom cannot absorb an amount of energy (in the form of a photon) which is smaller than the energy the atom already has.
Into the Night wrote:
No atom will accept a photon that has less energy than the atom itself already has.

When I demonstrated to you beyond a doubt that this is possible, you switched from "energy" to "thermal energy", claiming that conventional units of energy like eV or joule or calorie are incompatible with thermal energy for some unknown reason.
Into the Night wrote:
Math error. Unit incompatibility. Thermal is not electromagnetic energy. Potential energy is not thermal energy. Electron volts is not thermal energy.

And when I asked you to give me your preferred unit for "thermal energy", you made another switch from "thermal energy" to "average thermal energy".
Into the Night wrote:
Average thermal energy is measured as a temperature.


You're constantly moving the goal posts, mate. Did you really think I wouldn't notice?
But I've got more bad news for you: Taking the average of a set of values of a quantity doesn't change the unit of the quantity. If energy is eV/joule/cal/whatever then *average* energy is still eV/joule/cal/whatever and not suddenly Kelvin. You *really* need to be more careful with your units.

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'. Such a buzzword is redundant. Heat IS transfer. It's like you are saying "thermal energy transfer transfer".


Energy transfer is a process, not a quantity. Man, shit's really getting wild now. If we're free to constantly redefine words to our liking, I simply redefine heat to mean 'net energy' and call it a day.

Either way, if I call it "radiative energy transfer" instead of "radiative heat transfer" will you then give me a plausible mechanism?
Edited on 08-05-2020 01:46
08-05-2020 03:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted false quotation...Mantras 20g...29...


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
08-05-2020 04:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras 20a2...20g...29...fallacy fallacy...17...16c...16b...10f...10b...29...6...


No arguments presented. RQAA.

Since are probably not familiar with these mantra numbers yet, you can find them here.

You canna change the laws of physics by ignoring 'em, laddie.


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
08-05-2020 06:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
JackFou wrote: A mechanism, albeit "immaterial", needs to exist for something to happen.

1. Like, say, the mechanism for gravity?
2. No specific mechanism is required to discuss any principle or final result.

So, feel free to jump ahead all the way to your demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. Forget the "mechanism" angle; it's just a distraction.

JackFou wrote:I have explained to you what I consider a plausible mechanism for radiative energy transfer.

... and I have been clear that I am ignoring everything but discussion of thermal energy. Do you have a family history of being unable to stay on topic? It seems like you just weren't cut out to discuss physics.

Would you care to try something less taxing like sudoku puzzles?




.


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
08-05-2020 08:44
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras 20a2...20g...29...fallacy fallacy...17...16c...16b...10f...10b...29...6...


No arguments presented. RQAA.

Since are probably not familiar with these mantra numbers yet, you can find them here.

You canna change the laws of physics by ignoring 'em, laddie.


Aaaand we made it! Woohooo!
You officially ran out of things to say.

As I said in my initial comments, there was really pretty much 0 hope that you' (or your buddy IBdaMan) would ever admit to being wrong about pretty much anything. It'll be up to anyone reading this thread to decide for themselves who makes more sense, you or I.
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you're clown, so I'm happy.
08-05-2020 09:10
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
1. Like, say, the mechanism for gravity?


Uhm, gravity doesn't "happen". Motion happens. If you want to understand why or how, you can look into newtons law of motions or relativity theory.
For this thread I'd rather stay on the topic of (thermal) energy transfer.

IBdaMann wrote:
2. No specific mechanism is required to discuss any principle or final result.


You said previously
IBdaMann wrote:
Demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. Everything having to do with electromagnetic energy will be summarily ignored. You can use thermal radiation to help you in your ponderings and musings, but for the demonstration, thermal energy will be all that is examined.

The demonstration is easy, just open your eyes. It's happening constantly all around you. To understand how it happens and why in fact it has to happen for the world as we know it to exist, you need to understand the mechanism. If you don't have a mechanism, you cannot explain it. Without using electromagnetic energy, I cannot explain it -- and neither can you, apparently because I've asked you repeatedly and you've come up short so far.

For all *you* know, the reason why heat flows from warm to cold could be because of invisible witches up in the sky waving their magic wands. For all *you* know there is absolutely nothing preventing heat to flow backwards and the only reason why no one has ever observed an object spontaneously getting colder is because the witches just aren't in the mood for it.

IBdaMann wrote:
Do you have a family history of being unable to stay on topic?

It is you who brings up stuff like water flow, electricity flow and gravity in this discussion. Why do *you* find it so hard to stay on topic?

IBdaMann wrote:
It seems like you just weren't cut out to discuss physics.

Your capacity to "discuss physics" seems to be limited to pointing to a thermometer and asking people to read what it says.
Jeez, I'm sure glad we have some people in the world who go a bit further than you, otherwise we'd still live in the stone age.

Also it's kinda funny you'd say that because -- believe it or not -- I'm actually working as a research scientist. Every day I go out and use my knowledge of physics and chemistry (which, let's be real, is also just applied physics) to perform experiments to study systems and to figure out how to manipulate them to do what I want them to do. In fact I'm so good at it that some people who watched me do it for a couple of years decided to give me a PhD for it and now other people have enough faith in my expertise and my ability to deliver results to pay me good money for it.
If my understanding of physics is so poor as you claim that I don't even understand the basic laws of thermodynamics I shouldn't be able to get anything done and yet here I am. Strange world we live in, eh?
Edited on 08-05-2020 09:26
08-05-2020 11:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
JackFou wrote:
Aaaand we made it! Woohooo!
You officially ran out of things to say.
I must say Jack I've never seen ITN shut up so quickly. IBD generally degenerates into ad hominem attacks and nonsense right away but ITN usually lasts longer.

Your rebuttal was very well said so I'm not really surprised.

JackFou wrote:For all *you* know, the reason why heat flows from warm to cold could be because of invisible witches up in the sky waving their magic wands.
Or one might still believe in the "ether". If you are going to reject conventional physics you cannot just leave what you do believe unsaid.

JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
It seems like you just weren't cut out to discuss physics.

Your capacity to "discuss physics" seems to be limited to pointing to a thermometer and asking people to read what it says.
Actually
these guys aren't big on thermometers either:
gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue what the temperature of my house is.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....


I think it's fair to sum up the approach to dodging debate ITN/IBD rely on as this:
To dismiss the argument made but not make a counter argument. Rather they take the position that their counter argument can be assumed because it is the standard every one is aware of.

Of course it's not only entirely unique it is largely unclear. If you ask them for clarification they will claim they already explained it to you or that it is known.

Never a citation and never a positive example of anything that is legitimate, properly done, or a model.

It has all the sophistication and invincibility of a 3 year old asking "But why?" no matter what you say to them.

"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
08-05-2020 11:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
JackFou wrote:Also it's kinda funny you'd say that because -- believe it or not -- I'm actually working as a research scientist.

Correct. I don't believe you. You may be a researcher of some sort but you are not a scientist. Those who are not scientists are blissfully unaware of how they broadcast that they are frauds. I'm getting the impression that you have successfully pulled of this sort of bluff with other scientifically illiterate warmizombies and perhaps you were emboldened to try it here but it's too late ... everybody here already realizes you're a fraud.

Of course you are welcome to post and to argue whatever you want to argue, but if you believe that there is a chance that you might still fool someone then you are simply deluding yourself.

As a courtesy to you I'll give you a rundown on some of your blunders so you can avoid them in the future and "up your game" when you bluff.

JackFou wrote: Uhm, gravity doesn't "happen".

Yes, gravity "happens." In science we call that a "phenomenon" and guess what ... we have a science model for it specifically. Theory of Gravity. No one has ever observed its "mechanism" and no one has ever proposed one, just relationships. Newton proposed the relationship was mass. Einstein proposed a relationship based on the curvature of space/time. The bottom line is that there is no known mechanism for gravity yet it happens.

JackFou wrote: The demonstration is easy, just open your eyes. It's happening constantly all around you.

Here you have committed the gravest transgression against science by abandoning it altogether and opting for an unfalsifiable religious belief.

Scientist: Demonstrate that God exists
Christian: Just open your eyes and look at nature; all evidence points to God's existence.

Scientist: Demonstrate Global Warming.
Warmizombie: Just open your eyes; the evidence is all around you.

Scientist: Demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cool to warm.
JackFou: Just open your eyes; it's happening constantly all around you.

This fallacy of yours is called "attempting to shift the burden." You are the one claiming thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer, therefore you bear the full burden to support it. I, on the other hand, bear no burden whatsoever to show anything. I don't have to somehow show that thermal energy obeys the 2nd LoT.

I have told you what you must do, i.e. demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer, which is your claim. Your assertion that electromagnetic energy flies in every direction is not in contention so no one's time need be wasted on that subject.

JackFou wrote:Every day I go out and use my knowledge of physics and chemistry (which, let's be real, is also just applied physics) to perform experiments to study systems and to figure out how to manipulate them to do what I want them to do.

You are a researcher. You don't do experiments. You do tests. Because you are scientifically illiterate you don't understand the difference.

JackFou wrote: In fact I'm so good at it that some people who watched me do it for a couple of years decided to give me a PhD for it and now other people have enough faith in my expertise and my ability to deliver results to pay me good money for it.

Lots of people get paid good money to deliver results. It's the nature of results. It doesn't make them scientists.

Like I said, you've blown it here. When nobody buys the crap you're dishing out, don't act like it's somehow a big surprise.




OK ... act surprised if it makes you feel better.


.


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
08-05-2020 11:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:The bottom line is that there is no known mechanism for gravity yet it happens.
So getting back on track are you saying that thermal energy is transmitted through space through "no known mechanism ...yet it happens." ?

IBdaMann wrote:Here you have committed the gravest transgression ...
You're so obsessed with saying that people are getting it wrong.

IBD what do you say happens when thermal energy is transmitted through space? Do you say that it doesn't happen? Out with it. What is your explanation.

You have yet to actually take a position at all. Maybe you do believe in witches or the ether.

IBdaMann wrote:...demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer, which is your claim. Your assertion that electromagnetic energy flies in every direction is not in contention so no one's time need be wasted on that subject.
A transfer of thermal energy through space is radiance IBD. Now if you don't agree then there is your answer to the riddle. You deny radiant heat. You deny "heat" even. So that is the road block here for you.

In your world you'd take a magic marker and censor this image to exclude radiance as a form of thermal energy transfer:
From:
Thermal Energy Transfer: Conduction, Convection, Radiation
"Thermal Energy Transfer can occur by three methods:
Conduction
Convection
Radiation"

But one more time IBD: the radiance from the walls when it reaches your skin, what happens to it?

It is worth reminding that this issue is discussed on this board, and has been denied by ITN/IBD for 5 years, due to the greenhouse effect involving CO2 molecules absorbing radiance from the ground level of Earth and then radiating out that energy in all directions, including down to the Earth again. Now IBD you can play this "I won't consider radiance" game all you like but you've been claiming, for 5 years, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for radiance from CO2 in the atmosphere to return to Earth and be absorbed. So has ITN. That's why it has come up 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 08-05-2020 12:18
08-05-2020 12:31
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(729)
BTU or British Thermal unit
08-05-2020 13:26
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
I have told you what you must do, i.e. demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer, which is your claim. Your assertion that electromagnetic energy flies in every direction is not in contention so no one's time need be wasted on that subject.


Okay, I'll try to explain it one more time, carefully, so that even the slow people in the back of the room aka IBdaMan and Into the Night can follow:

I claim that (thermal) energy is transferred between two objects by means of emission and absorption of photons. The transfer as a fundamental process in the form of transitions between quantum mechanical energy states is reversible and may therefore happen from warm to cold and cold to warm and the only condition that must be fulfilled to satisfy full agreement with the laws of thermodynamics is that per unit of time, more energy is transferred from the warmer object to the colder object than in the other direction.

I claim that three phenomena can be demonstrated independently:
a) Thermal energy can be transformed into electromagnetic energy aka photons.
b) Photons emitted from a colder body can be absorbed by a warmer body (and transformed back into thermal energy if you will).
c) An atom or molecule can absorb photons that have less energy than the total energy already contained in the atom/molecule.

I subsequently claim that from a, b and c follows that (thermal) energy transfer from a colder object to a warmer object is quantum mechanically allowed and that the only condition that must be fulfilled to satisfy full agreement with the laws of thermodynamics is that per unit of time, more energy is transferred from the warmer object to the colder object than in the other direction.

It is impossible for you or for me to prove directly that the thermal energy within any body increases or decreases because it is impossible to measure thermal energy directly. It is only possible to measure temperature.
Since temperature, by your admission, is an aggregate quantity which depends on the *average* thermal energy of the particles in a system it would be incredibly difficult -- if not impossible -- to detect a temperature fluctuation in a macroscopic body as a result of the absorption or emission of individual photons.
Whether it is *actually* impossible I don't know for sure because I do not have a thermometer that has a response time on the order of femtoseconds and a sensitivity on the order of 10^-22 Kelvin -- and I strongly suspect neither do you. If you happen to have one, please let me know, I'd be extremely interested in what it has to say!

As a result of my lack of such a thermometer, my demonstration will necessarily have to rely on the abovementioned three phenomena.

Now you have previously declared that anything which involves photons or electromagnetic energy shall be summarily ignored. I claim that under this condition, it is not possible to explain radiative energy transfer in any direction.
I have repeatedly asked you to provide me with a mechanism for radiative energy transfer which you consider plausible so that I can see if I can prove my point using only what you consider to be valid and plausible physics. So far, you have not provided me with a mechanism and I strongly suspect that you cannot provide me with one without falling back on on photons and electromagnetic energy.

So unless you're willing to either provide your own pathway for radiative transfer of thermal energy or to accept my pathway which consists of i) transformation of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy ii) transmission of electromagnetic energy from object A to B and finally iii) transformation of electromagnetic energy back to thermal energy as valid, we cannot proceed here.
Edited on 08-05-2020 13:45
08-05-2020 16:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
JackFou wrote: Okay, I'll try to explain it one more time,

Don't bother. If you can't, you can't. Find some people who can help you.

JackFou wrote: I claim that (thermal) energy is transferred between two objects by means of emission and absorption of photons.

Let me know when you can stay on topic. I am ignoring everything you have to say about "how" thermal energy flows. Let me know when you get to demonstrating thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.


JackFou wrote:I claim that three phenomena can be demonstrated independently:
a) Thermal energy can be transformed into electromagnetic energy aka photons.
b) Photons emitted from a colder body can be absorbed by a warmer body (and transformed back into thermal energy if you will).
c) An atom or molecule can absorb photons that have less energy than the total energy already contained in the atom/molecule.

Are you claiming that thermal energy can flow from cooler body to a warmer body? If so, demonstrate it. What can I do to see some thermal energy flow from a cooler body to a warmer body? Remember that I will only be looking at thermal energy (ergo reading temperatures and noting changes in temperatures).

JackFou wrote: It is impossible for you or for me to prove directly that the thermal energy within any body increases or decreases because it is impossible to measure thermal energy directly. It is only possible to measure temperature.

Correct. However, if thermal energy increases, temperature increases. If thermal energy decreases then temperature decreases.

JackFou wrote: I claim that under this condition, it is not possible to explain radiative energy transfer in any direction.

Fortunately, I don't recall anyone asking for you to explain such. In fact, I don't recall anyone expressing confidence that you could explain such. In any event, I'm glad that you won't be wasting anyone's time on something we already understand.

JackFou wrote: So far, you have not provided me with a mechanism

Nor will I. You are the one with the burden to support your claim. Start supporting it. What can I do to observe thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body? If you've got a YouTube video that demostrates such that I could duplicate that would work. I would mention that I am asking to duplicate your experiment ... except that I just remembered you don't know what an experiment is, much less what is required for one to be valid.

Just think of something that someone could do to observe thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body, which will necessarily involve a temperature increase, however small, in the warmer body, so that we can then agree with your stated theory that thermal energy can flow from cooler to warmer.

I claim that the temperature of the warmest body will only decrease, and will experience no increase in temperature, i.e. no thermal energy will flow INTO it, regardless of whatever photons, electrons or little pink gremlins might be doing. My assertion is completely incompatible with your assertion so your successful demonstration will show me to be completely in error, and that will certainly open my eyes ... so get to it.

... and quit trying to shift your burden. I'm not going to be taking any of your monkeys onto my back. You made the claim so back it up or admit that you mispoke.


.
Attached image:


Edited on 08-05-2020 17:09
Page 4 of 10<<<23456>>>





Join the debate Nils-Axel Mörner:

Remember me

▲ 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