Remember me
▼ Content

Nils-Axel Mörner



Page 3 of 10<12345>>>
03-05-2020 12:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
tmiddles wrote:I have never said thermal energy is able to "flow" from cooler to warmer.

You directly implied it by using the term "net flow." It is an inescapable conclusion from using the term "net flow." Ergo, you own it by insisting on using the term "net flow" ... which you do purely out of dishonest devotion to Global Warming dogma.

Your position remains that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer even though a greater amount of thermal energy flows from warmer to cooler. Your position is NOT that zero thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer. Your attempts to deny your position are dismissed. You have to ditch the "net flow" term and use only "flow" i.e. "flow from warmer to cooler."

tmiddles wrote: Let me address it one more time:
As I define "flow" in thermal energy it is derived from the definition for "heat".

"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.

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

Conduction has a science model; feel free to use that model for conduction.

Stefan-Boltzman is not a model for the flow of thermal energy; it is a model for electromagnetic radiance. You cannot use it for thermal energy flow between two bodies.

Feel free to use the model I presented.


.


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
04-05-2020 02:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I have never said thermal energy is able to "flow" from cooler to warmer.

You directly implied it by using the term "net flow."
Well if you'd like to know what I'm thinking just ask. Since radiance moves from cooler to warmer and "radiant heat" is discussed in all texts on thermodynamics then the term "net flow" is necessary in my view if you discuss "heat" as "radiant heat" is a form. In a discussion of a planets atmospheric thermodynamics radiant heat is pretty hard to avoid. The "Net flow" issue in our discussions is exclusively due, on my end, to your claim made below about photons not being absorbed. The term actually used is "Net Radiative Heat Transfer" as detailed here:
TWELVE REFERENCES

IBdaMann wrote:Your position remains that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer ...
If you mean radiance then yes. But YOU (not myself or textbooks on the subject) seek to exclude radiance as a form of heat. Correct?

My position was is and will be that radiance moves from a cooler body to a warmer body, is absorbed and there is a thermal energy gain, by the warmer body, due to it's having received radiance from the cooler body.

It is my position that your assertion here:
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.

Is demonstrably false. demonstrated

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Let me address it one more time:
As I define "flow" in thermal energy it is derived from the definition for "heat".

"Heat" has no definition.
OK. Doesn't matter if you want to take a word off the board as long as the meaning it's traditionally attached to isn't denied.

You cool with there being a flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature. We don't even have to name it.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
04-05-2020 07:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
tmiddles wrote: Well if you'd like to know what I'm thinking just ask.

Nope. That never works. Besides, it's obvious what you are thinking, it's just never what you are expressing.

tmiddles wrote: Since radiance moves from cooler to warmer and "radiant heat" is discussed in all texts ...

Once again, totally immaterial. If I am discussing gorillas, it does not matter that all textbooks that you find discuss "radiant heat." That topic is not what I'm discussing.

tmiddles wrote: The "Net flow" issue in our discussions is exclusively due, on my end, to your claim made below about photons not being absorbed.

Once again, you dishonestly remove all the context that I provided in my attempt to explain. It's what you do to Trump, it's what you do to me. You omit whatever context you need to misrepresent a position via "what he said."

So, if we aren't able to get beyond your claim that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer, then we are stuck here until you demonstrate SOME thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.

Please do so.

tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Your position remains that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer ...
If you mean radiance then yes. But YOU (not myself or textbooks on the subject) seek to exclude radiance as a form of heat. Correct?

Yes and no.

Yes in the sense that Radiance is just an emission, not a transfer of thermal energy between bodies,

... and no, in the sense that I am simply just not talking about that. You are trying to change topics.

tmiddles wrote: My position was is and will be that radiance moves from a cooler body to a warmer body,

Except that while it leaves one body, it doesn't necessarily transfer to another body.

Stefan-Boltzmann: Radiance(A) = SB_Const * Emissivity(A) * AbsTemp(A)^4

Question: Radiant energy of A transfers to what body? I don't see any.


Next question: when are you going to show SOME thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer?

.


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
04-05-2020 11:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Since radiance...

Once again, totally immaterial. If I am discussing gorillas, it does not matter that all textbooks that you find discuss "radiant heat." That topic is not what I'm discussing.
You are discussing radiance right here IBD:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Are you trying to pretend I'm talking about something other than radiance when I say you're dead wrong with the above statement?
Kindly quote me.

IBdaMann wrote:...your claim that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer, ..
If you are going to say I claimed something quote me properly. You are only quoting yourself there. My claim is that radiance, as a form of thermal energy does so. If you want to pretend I said something else you'll have a tough time finding a quote to support it.

Is there some reason you're pretending you didn't say:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
And that I resoundingly debunked you here:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference Which is where, egg on your face, you first started this weird little mantra of pretending I'm not blacking up a claim you concocted? You first said:
IBdaMann wrote:
You are the one claiming that thermal radiation[emphasis by tmiddles] from a cooler body can be absorbed by a warmer body, and you well know that we are still waiting for your specific repeatable example of such. You know that the ball is in your court.
To which a person in a room is an excellent example but frankly anything will do. You have NEVER said what you mean by "repeatable" and why a person in a room isn't a suitable example. You have moved on to distort your mantra into claiming it was never an example of radiance at all.

Now that's YOU saying "thermal radiation" and there is not a hint of your objecting to radiation being considered thermal energy when you did so 05-09-2019 15:13

IBdaMann wrote:...You are trying to change topics.
Let me guess: You're going to pretend we are talking about conduction and convection with a reverse flow? Nope. Doesn't change the math either way and doesn't matter. I made no such claim.

IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann: Radiance(A) = SB_Const * Emissivity(A) * AbsTemp(A)^4
Question: Radiant energy of A transfers to what body? I don't see any.
It is a transfer out of a body. In the void of space, there may be negligible ambient radiance being absorbed by the same body. However those circumstances are rare. If you'd like to learn more, or actually debate the topic you'll find it all here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

IBdaMann wrote:Next question: when are you going to show SOME thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer?
Did I guess right? You're pretending we're talking about conduction and convection?

"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 04-05-2020 11:54
04-05-2020 13:10
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
But how do I make my beer cooler? Do you think Stefan-Boltzmann would crack a tinnie with me or is he more of a vodka guy?I have been known to drink warm beer if its all we got.You pair are never going to agree and you are saying the same thing
04-05-2020 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 6...20a2...paradox E...20q...29...TMSb3...4e...20a2...paradox V...29...20a2...29...20q...20g...23...29...7...31...4e...16c...


No argument 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
04-05-2020 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Since radiance...

Once again, totally immaterial. If I am discussing gorillas, it does not matter that all textbooks that you find discuss "radiant heat." That topic is not what I'm discussing.
You are discussing radiance right here IBD:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Are you trying to pretend I'm talking about something other than radiance when I say you're dead wrong with the above statement?
Kindly quote me.

Post 55859, liar. Mantras 20q...25f...20a2...29,,,
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...your claim that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer, ..
If you are going to say I claimed something quote me properly. You are only quoting yourself there. My claim is that radiance, as a form of thermal energy does so. If you want to pretend I said something else you'll have a tough time finding a quote to support it.
Radiance is not thermal energy. Mantras 29...paradox V...20a2...10 (radiance<->thermal energy)...
tmiddles wrote:
Is there some reason you're pretending you didn't say:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
And that I resoundingly debunked you here:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference Which is where, egg on your face, you first started this weird little mantra of pretending I'm not blacking up a claim you concocted? You first said:

Mantras 7...4a...4b...31...16a...
IBdaMann wrote:
You are the one claiming that thermal radiation[emphasis by tmiddles] from a cooler body can be absorbed by a warmer body, and you well know that we are still waiting for your specific repeatable example of such. You know that the ball is in your court.
To which a person in a room is an excellent example but frankly anything will do. You have NEVER said what you mean by "repeatable" and why a person in a room isn't a suitable example. You have moved on to distort your mantra into claiming it was never an example of radiance at all.

Now that's YOU saying "thermal radiation" and there is not a hint of your objecting to radiation being considered thermal energy when you did so 05-09-2019 15:13

Mantras 30...20a2...25f...10 (repeatable<->void)...29...30...29...16c...
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...You are trying to change topics.
Let me guess: You're going to pretend we are talking about conduction and convection with a reverse flow? Nope. Doesn't change the math either way and doesn't matter. I made no such claim.

Mantras 16b...25f...20q...10 (contextomy fallacy<->math)...16b...
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann: Radiance(A) = SB_Const * Emissivity(A) * AbsTemp(A)^4
Question: Radiant energy of A transfers to what body? I don't see any.
It is a transfer out of a body. In the void of space, there may be negligible ambient radiance being absorbed by the same body. However those circumstances are rare. If you'd like to learn more, or actually debate the topic you'll find it all here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
Mantras 20a1...20a2...6...29...7...4a...
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Next question: when are you going to show SOME thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer?
Did I guess right? You're pretending we're talking about conduction and convection?

Mantras 16b...29...6...

No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-05-2020 20:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
duncan61 wrote:
But how do I make my beer cooler? Do you think Stefan-Boltzmann would crack a tinnie with me or is he more of a vodka guy?I have been known to drink warm beer if its all we got.You pair are never going to agree and you are saying the same thing

May I suggest a refrigerator?

IBdaMann is saying the same kind of thing because the theories of science involved and the mathematics involved have not changed, and tmiddles continues to deny both in the same way.

Tmiddles seems to feel that you can make hot coffee by using an ice cube. He routinely denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics and he is bending over backwards to do it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-05-2020 00:08
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
Into the Night wrote:May I suggest a refrigerator?

IBdaMann is saying the same kind of thing because the theories of science involved and the mathematics involved have not changed, and tmiddles continues to deny both in the same way.

Tmiddles seems to feel that you can make hot coffee by using an ice cube. He routinely denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics and he is bending over backwards to do it.

Tmiddles is one flexible dude!
05-05-2020 04:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
tmiddles wrote: You are discussing radiance right here IBD:

I have discussed radiance in the past, as well as photons, light, thermal radiation, infrared, ultraviolet ... all sorts of electromagnetic energy.

1. At present, I am trying to discuss thermal energy, alone.
2. You are fighting tooth and nail to change the topic to electromagnetic energy. You latest attempt involves asserting that I addressed electromagnetic energy in the past.

The topic is thermal energy and how it flows, and I defined it for you, and I explained how radiance is not included. If you are unable to participate in this discussion because you don't know enough, feel free to go learn and this discussion will be waiting for you upon your return.


tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...your claim that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer, ..
If you are going to say I claimed something quote me properly.

Invalid request. Your claim came through IMPLICATION. Feel free to take a course in formal logic to learn why your "net flow" argument is exactly that claim. I also recommend some set theory and some axiomatic systems.

Yes, you made this claim.

tmiddles wrote:
Is there some reason you're pretending you didn't say:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Is there some reason you omitted all the context within which that was written, i.e. the bigger picture concept I was expressing?

I don't deny that I wrote that and I don't deny that you omitted all the context necessary to understand what I was saying. Nor do I deny that you are being completely dishonest.

tmiddles wrote: You have NEVER said what you mean by "repeatable" and why a person in a room isn't a suitable example.

Industry standards. All parameters must be under control by the tester and that is not possible with living things. You would do yourself a huge favor by becoming a certified systems tester. You would learn a lot.

By the way, I believe Eduard Wirths and Aribert Heim were some of the last to believe that involving humans in tests was valid for the scientific method. If living things are involved it can at most be research, it cannot be a valid test under the scientific method due to the inability to control and to know all parameters of any living thing.

tmiddles wrote:Now that's YOU saying "thermal radiation" and there is not a hint of your objecting to radiation being considered thermal energy when you did so 05-09-2019 15:13

I never considered thermal radiation, which is a form of electromagnetic energy, to be thermal energy, a completely different form of energy.


tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann: Radiance(A) = SB_Const * Emissivity(A) * AbsTemp(A)^4
Question: Radiant energy of A transfers to what body? I don't see any.
It is a transfer out of a body.

Nope. The word "transfer" necessarily includes both a source and a recipient. Stefan-Boltzmann discusses emission (source but no recipient).

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-05-2020 08:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:You are fighting tooth and nail to change the topic to electromagnetic energy.
You keep bringing up my use of "net flow" which I have only ever attributed to radiance. As you determined that for you radiance is not a form of thermal energy transfer (you now have gone so far as to say there is no such thing as "heat") then you are only left with conduction and convection. You want to only talk about conduction and convection as I suspected.

I do not have any reason to believe (and have never claimed) that thermal energy does flow from a cooler body to a warmer body through convection or conduction.

Your statement below:
IBdaMann wrote:...your claim that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer, ..
as applied to convection and/or conduction is not accurate. I have never thought that, alleged that or consider that to be more than a curious thought as it makes no difference either way since the calculations aren't going to change (Planck speculates on it but I don't).

IBdaMann wrote:...Your claim came through IMPLICATION...
If you thought I implied that there could be backwards conduction or backwards convection you are mistaken. I don't believe that. So let me guess you'd like to claim I do?

If so I don't know how to help you with that.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Is there some reason you're pretending you didn't say:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
Is there some reason you omitted all the context within which that was written, i.e. the bigger picture concept I was expressing?
I didn't it's linked to directly. It's a very straightforward discussion in which you throw that crazy idea down.

Here it is in full: link
17-08-2019 04:00
tmiddles wrote:...confused about, from the other post as well is the notion that radiance and conduction are not acting the same way. That an object will radiate and it's temperature change with no influence from objects nearby, or a void, unless the nearby object are hotter?
17-08-2019 16:29
IBdaMann wrote:
I have not had a chance to read this so it is not vetted, but read it and we can discuss after I get a chance to look at it.
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/plancks-quantum-theory-explains-why-low.html
18-08-2019 07:54
tmiddles wrote:
So this is an unclear presentation by hockeyshtick... ...EM radiation...will not be thermalized.
But what happens to it?
18-08-2019 09:36:
IBdaMann wrote:
1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
I asked a question, you answered it. What am I missing here IBD?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You have NEVER said what you mean by "repeatable" and why a person in a room isn't a suitable example.

Industry standards. All parameters must be under control by the tester and that is not possible with living things.
So first question is why would you reject research? Second is why don't you provide an example?

IBdaMann wrote:I never considered thermal radiation, which is a form of electromagnetic energy, to be thermal energy,
OK well maybe you should stop calling it thermal radiation. In any case I don't see a point there.

"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
05-05-2020 17:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You are fighting tooth and nail to change the topic to electromagnetic energy.
You keep bringing up my use of "net flow" which I have only ever attributed to radiance.

Nope. You have always used the term "net flow" to refer to thermal energy. You have always tried to use electromagnetic energy (photons) as the rationale for your arguments. I provided your quotes to that effect.

Let me know when you want to resume discussing thermal energy.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-05-2020 19:17
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
I recently came across this forum while I was trying to look up some information on climate change and after reading some threads here I have to say it is incredibly mind-boggling that Into the Night and IBDaMan after being active here for years *still* do not understand the first and second law of thermodynamics.
It is heartbreaking to see how two people who are clearly scientifically illiterate have convinced themselves that they're somehow geniuses.
05-05-2020 20:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
JackFou wrote:
I recently came across this forum while I was trying to look up some information on climate change and after reading some threads here I have to say it is incredibly mind-boggling that Into the Night and IBDaMan after being active here for years *still* do not understand the first and second law of thermodynamics.
It is heartbreaking to see how two people who are clearly scientifically illiterate have convinced themselves that they're somehow geniuses.

Welcome aboard mr. scientific genius. I am so glad that you are finally here to educate us rubes.

Please ... begin.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-05-2020 21:04
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
There is no point in trying to educate either of you. You have convinced yourself that you truly understand the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and their implications and that only your understanding is the correct one.
If you haven't understood it in the past 5 years, there is close to no chance that I would somehow be able to get it through your thick skull.
tmiddels tried several times to explain to you in this very thread that a hot and a cold object exchange energy in both directions -- however, since more energy per unit of time travels from the hot object to the cold object than in the other direction, the result is an overall flow of heat from warm to cold. Nothing about this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You simply deny that that's true by hand-waving. Your argument basically boils down to "nuh-uh, I'm right!".
I don't know what your educational background is but if you'd spoken to any physics professor at all in your life about your understanding of the 2nd or 1st law of thermodynamics as it relates to global warming, they'd immediately tell you that you're wrong.
Edited on 05-05-2020 21:05
06-05-2020 02:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:You have always used the term "net flow" to refer to thermal energy.
This is true because I define thermal energy transfer as being: Radiance, Conduction and Convection
I consider radiance to be a form of thermal energy, you don't.

Is there some reason you are getting stuck on a semantic issue of your own invention and then choosing to walk away?

IBdaMann wrote:
Let me know when you want to resume discussing thermal energy.
I have no problem discussing Conduction and Convection exclusive of radiance. What did you have to say on that subject?

If it's that there is no evidence of a "net flow" for either I've already said I've never thought otherwise.

JackFou wrote:...it is incredibly mind-boggling that Into the Night and IBDaMan after being active here for years *still* do not understand the first and second law of thermodynamics.
They know JackFou. Their attempt to destroy knowledge here has all the sophistication of a holocaust denier or flat earther. They are both reasonably intelligent shameless liars.

JackFou wrote:
There is no point in trying to educate either of you.
I would say that you won't succeed in winning THEM over. However I think developing a clear, honest and effective rebuttal to any and all BS is a public service.

Note their take on Covid-19! The stakes are always high.

JackFou wrote:...the result is an overall flow of heat from warm to cold.
And these clowns are no less than 229 years late on that since Pierre Provost first described the NET FLOW of radiance which he called "free heat".link
"Prevost's theory of exchanges stated that each body radiates to, and receives radiation from, other bodies."

But JackFou recognize this for what it is: an attack on coherent thought and reason. Man walks into a bar and says bars don't exist. How do you handle that? The GOAL is to frustrate you and get you angry. That's because this type of insanity depends entirely upon an allegation that there is fraud involved by the government, establishment, and certainly you if you are contradicting them. So remaking you as an agenda driven, angry conspirator is key.

ITN/IBD deny every textbook every published on thermodynamics because they believe there is a vast conspiracy to falsify information and dupe the public. It's the same formula you get from more reasonable conspiracy theories: say that the government can control the weather, to less reasonable, like that the Earth is actually flat and we're all being lied to on the subject.

Placing a human being in the "chain of custody" for any evidence the wacko theory is wacko, gives them an out. They simply claim that human being doctored the data, ect.

"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 06-05-2020 02:33
06-05-2020 03:08
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
tmiddles wrote:
...more reasonable conspiracy theories: say that the government can control the weather....


Hold on a minute! I thought the gov COULD control the weather. Isn't that the whole purpose of hefty carbon taxes? You mean to tell me it is all just a money grabbing scam? I'll be damned!


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
06-05-2020 09:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
GasGuzzler wrote:Isn't that the whole purpose of hefty carbon taxes? You mean to tell me it is all just a money grabbing scam? I'll be damned!

Wait, wait, wait ... run that by me again.


.


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
06-05-2020 10:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
There is no point in trying to educate either of you. You have convinced yourself that you truly understand the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and their implications and that only your understanding is the correct one.
If you haven't understood it in the past 5 years, there is close to no chance that I would somehow be able to get it through your thick skull.
tmiddels tried several times to explain to you in this very thread that a hot and a cold object exchange energy in both directions -- however, since more energy per unit of time travels from the hot object to the cold object than in the other direction, the result is an overall flow of heat from warm to cold. Nothing about this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
JackFou wrote:
You simply deny that that's true by hand-waving. Your argument basically boils down to "nuh-uh, I'm right!".

Inversion fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
I don't know what your educational background is but if you'd spoken to any physics professor at all in your life about your understanding of the 2nd or 1st law of thermodynamics as it relates to global warming, they'd immediately tell you that you're wrong.

Define 'global warming'.
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-W
Where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'W' is work.
2nd law of thermodtynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t)
Where 'e' is entropy, 't' is time.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing, or to trap light, heat, or thermal energy, or to cause a cold object to heat a warmer one.

It is YOU that is denying the laws of thermodynamics, and science with it.


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
06-05-2020 11:05
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
JackFou wrote:
I recently came across this forum while I was trying to look up some information on climate change and after reading some threads here I have to say it is incredibly mind-boggling that Into the Night and IBDaMan after being active here for years *still* do not understand the first and second law of thermodynamics.
It is heartbreaking to see how two people who are clearly scientifically illiterate have convinced themselves that they're somehow geniuses.

Stick it to them jack.


duncan61
06-05-2020 11:12
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
when I went to Nils place on the weekend to visit his daughter Astrid.We put our hot beers in the snow and they became cooler.How would that be described and regards
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
I get a lot of energy from nothing when I see Astrid
The beer was colder
We trapped a lot of heat that night
We prefer the lights off
We made a lot of thermal something now she is having a baby
06-05-2020 11:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You have always used the term "net flow" to refer to thermal energy.
This is true because I define thermal energy transfer as being: Radiance, Conduction and Convection
I consider radiance to be a form of thermal energy, you don't.

Electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. Mantras 20...10...
tmiddles wrote:
Is there some reason you are getting stuck on a semantic issue of your own invention and then choosing to walk away?

You are describing yourself. Mantras 17.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Let me know when you want to resume discussing thermal energy.
I have no problem discussing Conduction and Convection exclusive of radiance. What did you have to say on that subject?

Already answered. RQAA. Mantras 6...29.
tmiddles wrote:
If it's that there is no evidence of a "net flow" for either I've already said I've never thought otherwise.

Double negative. Try English. It works better. There is no such thing as 'net flow'. Buzzword fallacy. Mantras 10e.
tmiddles wrote:
JackFou wrote:...it is incredibly mind-boggling that Into the Night and IBDaMan after being active here for years *still* do not understand the first and second law of thermodynamics.
They know JackFou. Their attempt to destroy knowledge here has all the sophistication of a holocaust denier or flat earther.

Mantras 35a...35b1.
tmiddles wrote:
They are both reasonably intelligent shameless liars.

Mantras 17...5...29...
tmiddles wrote:
JackFou wrote:
There is no point in trying to educate either of you.
I would say that you won't succeed in winning THEM over. However I think developing a clear, honest and effective rebuttal to any and all BS is a public service.

Putting out your BS is not a public service. Mantras 7...20e2.
tmiddles wrote:
Note their take on Covid-19! The stakes are always high.

A 0.00135% infection rate is not high stakes. A 0.000274% death rate is not high stakes. You have a 1 in 336300 chance of even catching the virus at all. You have a 1 in 36,600,000 chance of dying from it.

You have a 1 in 7 chance of getting involved in an automobile accident within the next year sufficient to have injuries to one or both parties. In case you haven't noticed, the infection rate is dropping rapidly everywhere. Source: CDC, various State health departments.

tmiddles wrote:
JackFou wrote:...the result is an overall flow of heat from warm to cold.
And these clowns are no less than 229 years late on that since Pierre Provost first described the NET FLOW of radiance which he called "free heat".link
"Prevost's theory of exchanges stated that each body radiates to, and receives radiation from, other bodies."

There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Quoting Holy Links and misquoting people does not change that. Worshipping a scientist for what he said at any particular point does not matter. Only the theory of science itself matters. You are denying it. Mantras 4f...37d.
tmiddles wrote:
But JackFou recognize this for what it is: an attack on coherent thought and reason. Man walks into a bar and says bars don't exist. How do you handle that? The GOAL is to frustrate you and get you angry. That's because this type of insanity depends entirely upon an allegation that there is fraud involved by the government, establishment, and certainly you if you are contradicting them. So remaking you as an agenda driven, angry conspirator is key.

Mantras 35b1...35a...5
tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD deny every textbook every published on thermodynamics

Mantras 4b...25g...20a2...
tmiddles wrote:
because they believe there is a vast conspiracy to falsify information and dupe the public.

Mantras 17...35a.
tmiddles wrote:
It's the same formula you get from more reasonable conspiracy theories: say that the government can control the weather, to less reasonable, like that the Earth is actually flat and we're all being lied to on the subject.

Mantras 35a...35b1...
tmiddles wrote:
Placing a human being in the "chain of custody" for any evidence the wacko theory is wacko, gives them an out. They simply claim that human being doctored the data, ect.

What data? Mantras 25g...4e...void argument fallacy.

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
06-05-2020 11:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
duncan61 wrote:
when I went to Nils place on the weekend to visit his daughter Astrid.We put our hot beers in the snow and they became cooler.How would that be described and regards
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
I get a lot of energy from nothing when I see Astrid
The beer was colder
We trapped a lot of heat that night
We prefer the lights off
We made a lot of thermal something now she is having a baby


You didn't trap a bit of heat.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-05-2020 12:45
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
tmiddles wrote:
They know JackFou. Their attempt to destroy knowledge here has all the sophistication of a holocaust denier or flat earther. They are both reasonably intelligent shameless liars.


A lot of people are reasonably intelligent. I am reasonably intelligent, you are reasonably intelligent. I can believe that they're reasonably intelligent too.
However, being intelligent doesn't prevent you from being colossally wrong.

Einstein was famously wrong about quantum mechanics with his rejection of "spooky action at a distance". Linus Pauling, another of the intellectual giants of modern physics, went completely off the rails in his later life, promoting eugenics and claiming that vitamin C could eradicate the common cold and even treat cancer.

tmiddles wrote: I would say that you won't succeed in winning THEM over. However I think developing a clear, honest and effective rebuttal to any and all BS is a public service.

Sure, that I can agree with.

tmiddles wrote: And these clowns are no less than 229 years late on that since Pierre Provost first described the NET FLOW of radiance which he called "free heat".link
"Prevost's theory of exchanges stated that each body radiates to, and receives radiation from, other bodies."


You don't even need to take anyone's word for it. The fact that energy must flow in both directions between a hot and a cold object follows directly from an understanding of the mechanism of (radiative) energy transfer on an atomic level and a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Heck, even some basic classical mechanics could explain how atoms bumping into each other would be able to transfer energy in both directions.

tmiddles wrote:
But JackFou recognize this for what it is: an attack on coherent thought and reason. Man walks into a bar and says bars don't exist. How do you handle that? The GOAL is to frustrate you and get you angry. That's because this type of insanity depends entirely upon an allegation that there is fraud involved by the government, establishment, and certainly you if you are contradicting them. So remaking you as an agenda driven, angry conspirator is key.


Yes, I agree they show all the hallmarks of classical conspiracy theorists. All observations which confirm their world view are valid and all the ones that don't are necessarily false and everyone who maintains those observations is part of the conspiracy.
I just don't think that they have a very deep understanding of physics. You don't get a good understanding of physics by being smart. You get a good understanding of physics by studying it rigorously. They strike me as guys who did a cursory reading of some physics texts and figured they understood it because there likely was no one around to point out their errors to them.
Maybe I'm wrong, you know them better than I do. But my experience with these types is that generally they don't know nearly as much as they think they do.
Edited on 06-05-2020 12:46
06-05-2020 13:24
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.

No one said you can heat a warmer object with a colder object. You're misrepresenting my argument. That's a strawman fallacy.

If 10 joules per second flow from the cold object to the warm object and 50 joules per second flow from the warm object to the cold object, the result is a net flow of 40 joules per second from warm to cold. Those 40 joules per second are exactly what causes the temperature changes that we observe macroscopically.

In order for the cold object to heat the warm object, the overall spontaneous flow of energy from cold to warm would have to be greater than the flow of energy from warm to cold. That is not possible and no one said it was.

There is no such thing as 'net heat' because heat is exactly a net flow of energy. If 10 joules per second flow from cold to warm and 50 joules per second flow from warm to cold, what we call heat transfer between the two objects is exactly those net 40 joules per second.

You can dig around in thermodynamics all you want but you won't find any answer there. Every atom of the cold and warm objects interacting with their environment represent and individual flow of energy. But heat transfer in thermodynamics is concerned with the net flow of energy that results as the sum of all the individual flows.

If you want to claim that energy cannot flow at all from cold to warm, *you* need to explain why in conductive heat transfer atoms from the cold object bumping into the atoms of the hot object cannot transfer energy in their collisions while the ones from the hot object can transfer their energy in collisions.
You would also have to explain how in radiative heat transfer either the cold object would selectively aim its thermal radiation away from the hot object or how the hot object would selectively block incoming radiation from the cold object. Both of these mechanisms would require either object to have some "knowledge" of the temperature of a distant other object which clearly doesn't exist.
Microscopic reversibility forbids all of those processes of energy transfer from being strictly one-way as you seem to claim.

Into the Night wrote:
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-W
Where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'W' is work.
2nd law of thermodtynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t)
Where 'e' is entropy, 't' is time.


You conveniently forgot the part about isolated systems.
Entropy can decrease locally if it increases by an equal or greater amount somewhere else. If you put water in a freezer it freezes, locally decreasing energy and entropy inside the water. This is possible because your freezer is not an isolated system. It dissipates heat into the environment, increasing energy and entropy elsewhere.
Earth is not an isolated system either because there is constantly energy pouring in from the sun and energy pouring out into space.

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing, or to trap light, heat, or thermal energy, or to cause a cold object to heat a warmer one.


No one is disputing any of that. Just more strawmen from your side.
What greenhouse gases can do is redirect flows of energy by absorbing and re-emitting photons.
It's the same issue I've pointed out above. If you want to claim that CO2 in the atmosphere cannot send energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation towards the surface of the earth, *you* would have to explain how a CO2 molecule up in the air "knows" about the temperature of the surface of the earth and the temperature of space so that it can strategically aim it's photon towards space.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere don't heat the surface of the earth. The sun heats the surface of the earth. What greenhouse gases do is they partially prevent the surface of the earth from cooling itself through radiative cooling.
The over all net flow of energy is still from the surface of the earth towards the atmosphere.
Edited on 06-05-2020 13:39
06-05-2020 15:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Into the Night wrote:
You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one.
But ITN do you disagree with IBD?:
IBdaMann wrote:
"Heat" has no definition.
IBD do you disagree with ITN who is making claims about this "Heat" you say is a word that doesn't even have a definition?

ITN do you have a problem considering this without using the word "heat"?

You are warmer than the walls of the room you are in right now. When the radiance from those walls reaches your skin is it absorbed and converted to thermal energy?


"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 06-05-2020 15:27
06-05-2020 16:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
JackFou wrote: If 10 joules per second flow from the cold object to the warm object and 50 joules per second flow from the warm object to the cold object, the result is a net flow of 40 joules per second from warm to cold.

Hey genius, if 40 joules per second flow from the warm to the cold and zero joules per second flow from the cold to warm, then the zero flowing from cold to warm precludes it from being a "net flow" and makes it just a "flow."

Hey genius, water flows downhill. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" downhill? That's right, it's because there is zero flowing uphill.

Hey genius, electrical current flows from negative to positive. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" from negative to positive? That's right, because none flows from positive to negative.

Hey genius, thermal energy flows from warmer to cooler. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" from warmer to cooler? That's right, it's because no thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer.

Perhaps tmiddles never mentioned how he has been on tap since August of last year to demonstrate any thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. Whenever he is asked he quickly changes the subject to electromagnetic radiation and points to photons flying all over the place because he can never remember that electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. Doh!

But fortunately for him YOU are stepping in to demonstrate such. Excellent. Demonstrate away.



JackFou wrote: You conveniently forgot the part about isolated systems.

Great! You are a Wikipedia warrior. Picking you apart won't even require me to pay attention.

JackFou wrote: Entropy can decrease locally if it increases by an equal or greater amount somewhere else.

That's GENIUS! How exactly does unusable energy within a closed system suddenly transform into usable energy? ... or did you not read that far in the wiki?



JackFou wrote: If you put water in a freezer it freezes, locally decreasing energy and entropy inside the water.

Too funny! You are making my day. What exactly is the closed system in this scenario?

JackFou wrote: This is possible because your freezer is not an isolated system.

Hey genius, there is no such thing as entroy outside of a closed system. Didn't Wikipedia mention that? Don't tell me there's an error in Wikipedia!

JackFou wrote: Earth is not an isolated system either because there is constantly energy pouring in from the sun and energy pouring out into space.

You don't even know what a closed system is! You're a dumbass. Go back to underlining passages in your Wikipedia.

You're done.

JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing, or to trap light, heat, or thermal energy, or to cause a cold object to heat a warmer one.

No one is disputing any of that. Just more strawmen from your side.

Hey genius, every nutcase warmizombie disputes that. It's the basis for the mythical "Greenhouse Efffect." You're as stupid as they come; you've GOT to believe in it.

JackFou wrote: What greenhouse gases can do is redirect flows of energy by absorbing and re-emitting photons.

Hey genius, doesn't the "re" in "re-emit" imply the photons are "re-emitted"? Doesn't that mean they have to be, you know, the same. What language is spoken in your country? If the photons are changed then what is emitted is "produced." Do you at least get the gist? There is no "re-emitting" going on. Well, not zero exactly but for your purposes you might as well ... aww what am I thinking, it's not like you are going to grasp anything ... so let's just pat you on the head and reassure you that you are a genius.



JackFou wrote:Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere don't heat the surface of the earth. The sun heats the surface of the earth. What greenhouse gases do is they partially prevent the surface of the earth from cooling itself through radiative cooling.

So these "greenhouse gases" actually do reduce the earth's radiance into space, and thus have a corresponding increase in temperature, yes?

What is that Greenhouse Effect formula? (i.e. every ppm greenhouse gas results in X temperature increase) You can use the formula right there in Wikipedia.

You are a true genius and I am honored to be able to bask in the net flow of your brilliance.


.


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
06-05-2020 19:00
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, water flows downhill. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" downhill? That's right, it's because there is zero flowing uphill.

Wrong. If you look at individual water molecules, they move in random directions at any given point in time due to thermal motion. Only if you look at the overall average motion of many water molecules do you get a net flow following a gradient.
In a real stream you will also get turbulences and such which represent small individual flows in different directions which deviate from the direction of the overall net flow. Fluid dynamics is not trivial.

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, electrical current flows from negative to positive. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" from negative to positive? That's right, because none flows from positive to negative.

Wrong. The direction of flow of electric current is simply a convention. In fact, "conventional current flow" assumes current flow from positive to negative. Current flow from negative to positive gives you the exact same result with an opposite sign.
If you want to talk about the movement of electrons inside a conductor, you're still wrong. Individual electrons do indeed move back and forth. Just like the water molecules in a stream, an individual electron moves in random directions at any given point in time. Electrons are constantly scattered around and bouncing off of each other. Only if you look at the overall average motion of many electrons do you get a net flow following a gradient.

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, thermal energy flows from warmer to cooler. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" from warmer to cooler? That's right, it's because no thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer.


I hope you do agree with me that all objects above 0 Kelvin emit thermal radiation.
If that is true then both the hot and the cold object emit thermal radiation in the form of photons. In the process they lose thermal energy. That's what is commonly referred to as "radiative cooling".

If you believe that exactly 0 joules per second are transferred from a cold to a warm object, please do explain to me how either the cold object knows how to strategically aim its photons away from the hot object or how the hot object knows which photons originate from the cold object and how it can specifically avoid absorbing those.

IBdaMann wrote:
Perhaps tmiddles never mentioned how he has been on tap since August of last year to demonstrate any thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. Whenever he is asked he quickly changes the subject to electromagnetic radiation and points to photons flying all over the place because he can never remember that electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. Doh!


If you claim that thermal radiation being emitted by one object and absorbed by another object does not represent a flow of thermal energy, then please, do explain to me, in your own words, how radiative heat transfer happens, mechanistically on the scale of atoms. How does thermal energy get from A to B through a vacuum without using photons or electromagnetic radiation?

IBdaMann wrote:
Great! You are a Wikipedia warrior. Picking you apart won't even require me to pay attention.

So you don't agree with me that the first and second law of thermodynamics only apply to isolated systems?

You obviously have not independently derived the laws of thermodynamics from first principles through experimentation. When you say that the 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, you're clearly basing this assertion on some source which you consider authoritative. Which source is that and what does that source have to say about isolated systems with regards to the first and second law of thermodynamics?

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: If you put water in a freezer it freezes, locally decreasing energy and entropy inside the water.

Too funny! You are making my day. What exactly is the closed system in this scenario?

There is no closed system here which I did explain in the very next sentence. All you had to do is read literally one sentence ahead.
*You* are the one who said previously that a closed system is not a requirement for the 1st law of thermodynamics to hold.
I claim the exact opposite namely that the first law of thermodynamics only holds for closed/isolated systems.
So which is it? Do the first and second law of thermodynamics apply only to isolated system or not?

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, doesn't the "re" in "re-emit" imply the photons are "re-emitted"? Doesn't that mean they have to be, you know, the same.

Only if you're trying to play semantic games. But since you're a man of science by your own admission, I'm sure you're only arguing in good faith and you would never try to deflect by reducing a scientific argument to a semantic one, am I right?
Photons don't have names or numbers. For all intents and purposes, two photons of the same wavelength are indistinguishable. If I swapped them around somehow, you'd be none the wiser. So if a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon of wavelength, say, 15 µm, transitions to an exited state, falls back down to its previous energy state and emits a photon of 15 µm, I think it's reasonable to call this "re-emitting".
You might disagree with the semantics but the process remains the same, regardless.
Edited on 06-05-2020 19:33
06-05-2020 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
You don't even need to take anyone's word for it. The fact that energy must flow in both directions between a hot and a cold object follows directly from an understanding of the mechanism of (radiative) energy transfer on an atomic level and a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Heck, even some basic classical mechanics could explain how atoms bumping into each other would be able to transfer energy in both directions.

Nope. Now you are denying Newton's laws of motion, F=mA. You cannot create momentum out of nothing. Momentum is conserved. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Energy is conserved.
JackFou wrote:
Yes, I agree they show all the hallmarks of classical conspiracy theorists. All observations which confirm their world view are valid and all the ones that don't are necessarily false and everyone who maintains those observations is part of the conspiracy.

Newton's laws, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law have not been falsified. You can't just discard them.
JackFou wrote:
I just don't think that they have a very deep understanding of physics.

Inversion fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
You don't get a good understanding of physics by being smart. You get a good understanding of physics by studying it rigorously. They strike me as guys who did a cursory reading of some physics texts and figured they understood it because there likely was no one around to point out their errors to them.

Inversion fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, you know them better than I do. But my experience with these types is that generally they don't know nearly as much as they think they do.

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
06-05-2020 20:54
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
You don't even need to take anyone's word for it. The fact that energy must flow in both directions between a hot and a cold object follows directly from an understanding of the mechanism of (radiative) energy transfer on an atomic level and a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Heck, even some basic classical mechanics could explain how atoms bumping into each other would be able to transfer energy in both directions.

Nope. Now you are denying Newton's laws of motion, F=mA. You cannot create momentum out of nothing. Momentum is conserved. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Energy is conserved.


I am neither creating nor destroying energy or momentum in what I'm describing. I'm transferring energy from one atom to another.
Think of two billiard balls if you will moving at different speeds perpendicular to each other and let the slower one slam into the faster one. Is energy not transferred from the slower billiard ball to the faster one in this scenario?

Into the Night wrote:
Newton's laws, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law have not been falsified. You can't just discard them.


I'm neither trying to falsify nor discard any of these laws. I agree with you that they're valid. I just disagree with you about what they actually say. I'm claiming that you are misunderstanding them and misrepresenting their consequences.
Edited on 06-05-2020 21:02
06-05-2020 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.

No one said you can heat a warmer object with a colder object.

tmiddles does. You do too.
JackFou wrote:
You're misrepresenting my argument. That's a strawman fallacy.

No, that IS the argument. You are calling your own argument a strawman fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
If 10 joules per second flow from the cold object to the warm object and 50 joules per second flow from the warm object to the cold object, the result is a net flow of 40 joules per second from warm to cold. Those 40 joules per second are exactly what causes the temperature changes that we observe macroscopically.

There is no such thing as 'net flow'. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
JackFou wrote:
In order for the cold object to heat the warm object, the overall spontaneous flow of energy from cold to warm would have to be greater than the flow of energy from warm to cold. That is not possible and no one said it was.

tmiddles does. So do you. You are again attempting to deny your own argument.
JackFou wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net heat' because heat is exactly a net flow of energy. If 10 joules per second flow from cold to warm and 50 joules per second flow from warm to cold, what we call heat transfer between the two objects is exactly those net 40 joules per second.

Contrived 'proof'. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
JackFou wrote:
You can dig around in thermodynamics all you want but you won't find any answer there.

The answer is there. The 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is also in quantum mechanics.
JackFou wrote:
Every atom of the cold and warm objects interacting with their environment represent and individual flow of energy.

Atoms are not energy. They are matter. That matters. Redefinition fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
But heat transfer in thermodynamics is concerned with the net flow of energy that results as the sum of all the individual flows.

There is no such thing as 'net flow' or 'net heat'.
JackFou wrote:
If you want to claim that energy cannot flow at all from cold to warm, *you* need to explain why in conductive heat transfer atoms from the cold object bumping into the atoms of the hot object cannot transfer energy in their collisions while the ones from the hot object can transfer their energy in collisions.

See Newton's laws of motion.
JackFou wrote:
You would also have to explain how in radiative heat transfer either the cold object would selectively aim its thermal radiation away from the hot object or how the hot object would selectively block incoming radiation from the cold object.

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.
JackFou wrote:
Both of these mechanisms would require either object to have some "knowledge" of the temperature of a distant other object which clearly doesn't exist.

Nope. No 'knowledge' required. An atom simply will not accept a photon of less energy than the atom itself already has. You are trying to reduce entropy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
JackFou wrote:
Microscopic reversibility forbids all of those processes of energy transfer from being strictly one-way as you seem to claim.

All flow is strictly one way. There is no such thing as 'net flow'. No part of a river flows uphill, for example.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-W
Where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'W' is work.
2nd law of thermodtynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t)
Where 'e' is entropy, 't' is time.


You conveniently forgot the part about isolated systems.

Nope. You are now about to define closed systems as open by comparing two systems as the same system.
JackFou wrote:
Entropy can decrease locally if it increases by an equal or greater amount somewhere else.

False equivalence fallacy. Two different systems are not the same system.
JackFou wrote:
If you put water in a freezer it freezes, locally decreasing energy and entropy inside the water.

False equivalence fallacy. Two different systems are not the same system.
JackFou wrote:
This is possible because your freezer is not an isolated system.

Yes it is. You do not understand the meaning of 'isolated system'. It is simply the system with boundaries you define. No energy source or sink from outside the system may be considered. You are considering them, by comparing two different systems as if they were the same system. That's a false equivalence fallacy. tmiddles makes the same mistake.
JackFou wrote:
It dissipates heat into the environment, increasing energy and entropy elsewhere.

Nope. You are comparing the system of the freezer itself to the system of the freezer and the outside room temperature. False equivalence fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
Earth is not an isolated system either because there is constantly energy pouring in from the sun and energy pouring out into space.

Yes it is. The Earth is an isolated system. The Earth-Sun-space system is a different isolated system. False equivalence fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing, or to trap light, heat, or thermal energy, or to cause a cold object to heat a warmer one.


No one is disputing any of that. Just more strawmen from your side.

Both you and tmiddles are. Mantras 20i...20h.
You cannot increase the temperature of something without additional energy. Mantra 20a1.
JackFou wrote:
What greenhouse gases can do is redirect flows of energy by absorbing and re-emitting photons.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. Mantra 20a2.
JackFou wrote:
It's the same issue I've pointed out above. If you want to claim that CO2 in the atmosphere cannot send energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation towards the surface of the earth, *you* would have to explain how a CO2 molecule up in the air "knows" about the temperature of the surface of the earth and the temperature of space so that it can strategically aim it's photon towards space.

No atom will accept a photon of less energy than the atom itself already has. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
JackFou wrote:
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere don't heat the surface of the earth.

Then how does the surface of the Earth get warmer, using your crazy 'theory'?
JackFou wrote:
The sun heats the surface of the earth. What greenhouse gases do is they partially prevent the surface of the earth from cooling itself through radiative cooling.

Not possible. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. You are trying to reduce entropy again, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which you deny. You are trying to create energy out of nothing, ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that radiance increases with increasing temperature. It never is inversely proportional to temperature.
JackFou wrote:
The over all net flow of energy is still from the surface of the earth towards the atmosphere.

There is no such thing as 'net flow'. Buzzword fallacy. You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas. No gas or vapor has the capability of warming the Earth.


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
06-05-2020 21:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one.
But ITN do you disagree with IBD?:
IBdaMann wrote:
"Heat" has no definition.
IBD do you disagree with ITN who is making claims about this "Heat" you say is a word that doesn't even have a definition?

ITN do you have a problem considering this without using the word "heat"?

You are warmer than the walls of the room you are in right now. When the radiance from those walls reaches your skin is it absorbed and converted to thermal energy?


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
06-05-2020 21:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, water flows downhill. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" downhill? That's right, it's because there is zero flowing uphill.

Wrong. If you look at individual water molecules, they move in random directions at any given point in time due to thermal motion. Only if you look at the overall average motion of many water molecules do you get a net flow following a gradient.

Nope. Thermal energy is not concentrated in one part of a river, making it flow backwards. There is no magick 'gradient'.
JackFou wrote:
In a real stream you will also get turbulences and such which represent small individual flows in different directions which deviate from the direction of the overall net flow. Fluid dynamics is not trivial.

It is trivial. You use the same equations as Ohms laws. Flow does not occur unless there is a pressure. The flow is restricted by friction. flow=pressure/resistance. That's Ohm's law. I=E/R.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, electrical current flows from negative to positive. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" from negative to positive? That's right, because none flows from positive to negative.

Wrong. The direction of flow of electric current is simply a convention.

WRONG. The flow of electricity is the flow of electrons, nothing else. Benjamin Franklin had it backwards. His legacy is that we still use symbols AS IF current flowed from positive to negative.
If you think current flows from positive to negative, explain how a vacuum diode tube works.
JackFou wrote:
In fact, "conventional current flow" assumes current flow from positive to negative.

Current only flows from negative to positive. Only electrons flowing are electric current.
JackFou wrote:
Current flow from negative to positive gives you the exact same result with an opposite sign.

Nope. Explain how a diode vacuum tube works if current is flowing from positive to negative.
JackFou wrote:
If you want to talk about the movement of electrons inside a conductor, you're still wrong.

Nope. He is absolutely correct.
JackFou wrote:
Individual electrons do indeed move back and forth.

But they all flow in the same direction. None of them are flowing backwards.
JackFou wrote:
Just like the water molecules in a stream,

All are flowing in the same direction. None of them are flowing uphill.
JackFou wrote:
an individual electron moves in random directions at any given point in time.

But they are all flowing in the same direction.
JackFou wrote:
Electrons are constantly scattered around and bouncing off of each other.

Electrons are not rubber balls. Do you know what a 'negative' is? Do you know what the negative terminal of a battery supplies? Do you know what's lacking at the positive terminal of a battery?
JackFou wrote:
Only if you look at the overall average motion of many electrons do you get a net flow following a gradient.

Nope. There is no such thing as a 'net flow'. No electrons are flowing anywhere but toward the positive terminal.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, thermal energy flows from warmer to cooler. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" from warmer to cooler? That's right, it's because no thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer.


I hope you do agree with me that all objects above 0 Kelvin emit thermal radiation.
If that is true then both the hot and the cold object emit thermal radiation in the form of photons. In the process they lose thermal energy. That's what is commonly referred to as "radiative cooling".

If you believe that exactly 0 joules per second are transferred from a cold to a warm object, please do explain to me how either the cold object knows how to strategically aim its photons away from the hot object or how the hot object knows which photons originate from the cold object and how it can specifically avoid absorbing those.

Already done. RQAA. You cannot heat a warmer object using a colder one. You can't do it by conduction. You can't do it by convection. You can't do it by radiance. You CAN'T DO IT.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Perhaps tmiddles never mentioned how he has been on tap since August of last year to demonstrate any thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. Whenever he is asked he quickly changes the subject to electromagnetic radiation and points to photons flying all over the place because he can never remember that electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. Doh!


If you claim that thermal radiation being emitted by one object and absorbed by another object does not represent a flow of thermal energy, then please, do explain to me, in your own words, how radiative heat transfer happens, mechanistically on the scale of atoms. How does thermal energy get from A to B through a vacuum without using photons or electromagnetic radiation?

Evasion. Answer IBDaMann's question.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Great! You are a Wikipedia warrior. Picking you apart won't even require me to pay attention.

So you don't agree with me that the first and second law of thermodynamics only apply to isolated systems?

Nope. They don't. The system only needs to be closed (defined, with unchanging boundaries).
JackFou wrote:
You obviously have not independently derived the laws of thermodynamics from first principles through experimentation.

Demonstrate that you can decrease entropy IN THE SAME SYSTEM without using outside energy sources or sinks.
JackFou wrote:
When you say that the 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, you're clearly basing this assertion on some source which you consider authoritative.

The 1st law of thermodynamics has not yet been falsified. You cannot just ignore it. The theory itself is the authority.
JackFou wrote:
Which source is that and what does that source have to say about isolated systems with regards to the first and second law of thermodynamics?

Irrelevance fallacy. The theory itself is the authority. It might enlighten you to study the history of these two theories and how they came about.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: If you put water in a freezer it freezes, locally decreasing energy and entropy inside the water.

Too funny! You are making my day. What exactly is the closed system in this scenario?

There is no closed system here which I did explain in the very next sentence. All you had to do is read literally one sentence ahead.

You are describing two different closed systems as if they were the same system. False equivalence fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
*You* are the one who said previously that a closed system is not a requirement for the 1st law of thermodynamics to hold.

It isn't. However, all observable systems are closed, even the observable portion of the Universe. YOU keep trying to compare two different systems as if they are the same system, and YOU keep trying to declare closed systems as open ones.
JackFou wrote:
I claim the exact opposite namely that the first law of thermodynamics only holds for closed/isolated systems.

You are wrong. Wikipedia is wrong too.
JackFou wrote:
So which is it? Do the first and second law of thermodynamics apply only to isolated system or not?

They apply to all systems, open or closed. They apply to the entire Universe, even the part we cannot see (an open system). They apply to any closed system.
* You cannot compare two different systems as equivalent.
* You cannot declare a closed system as open.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, doesn't the "re" in "re-emit" imply the photons are "re-emitted"? Doesn't that mean they have to be, you know, the same.

Only if you're trying to play semantic games. But since you're a man of science by your own admission, I'm sure you're only arguing in good faith and you would never try to deflect by reducing a scientific argument to a semantic one, am I right?

It is YOU that is trying to turn this into a semantic argument. Inversion fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
Photons don't have names or numbers.

They do have a given energy, however. That energy is different depending on the photon's frequency (or wavelength, if you prefer).
JackFou wrote:
For all intents and purposes, two photons of the same wavelength are indistinguishable.

No all photons are the same wavelength. You are attempting to compare all photons of different wavelengths to photons of the same wavelength. False equivalence fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
If I swapped them around somehow, you'd be none the wiser. So if a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon of wavelength, say, 15 µm, transitions to an exited state, falls back down to its previous energy state and emits a photon of 15 µm, I think it's reasonable to call this "re-emitting".

You are forgetting that CO2 is transferring some of it's energy to surrounding molecules by conduction. You are also forgetting that hot air rises (including CO2) and is dissipating energy by convection. The photon that was absorbed is DESTROYED. it no longer exists. Any photon emitted will be either due to an electron dropping in energy or due to the atom or molecule as a whole vibrating due to thermal energy. There is more than one way to make light.

Light is not heat. ONLY light that is absorbed and converted to thermal energy is heat. Not all light is absorbed. Not all light that is absorbed is converted to thermal energy.

JackFou wrote:
You might disagree with the semantics but the process remains the same, regardless.

Your 'process' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-05-2020 21:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
You don't even need to take anyone's word for it. The fact that energy must flow in both directions between a hot and a cold object follows directly from an understanding of the mechanism of (radiative) energy transfer on an atomic level and a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Heck, even some basic classical mechanics could explain how atoms bumping into each other would be able to transfer energy in both directions.

Nope. Now you are denying Newton's laws of motion, F=mA. You cannot create momentum out of nothing. Momentum is conserved. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Energy is conserved.


I am neither creating nor destroying energy or momentum in what I'm describing.

Yes you are. I have already described how.
JackFou wrote:
I'm transferring energy from one atom to another.

You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
JackFou wrote:
Think of two billiard balls if you will moving at different speeds perpendicular to each other and let the slower one slam into the faster one. Is energy not transferred from the slower billiard ball to the faster one in this scenario?

No. Both balls have energy. They both have momentum. The combined momentum between both balls does not increase. All that happens is that they will change direction if the collide, applying an equal and opposite force to each other momentarily at the moment of collision., which will change their direction. Total momentum is conserved. Energy of the two balls is conserved. One ball may have more energy after the collision than the other. One ball may transfer some of its energy to the other, but they one with less energy does not transfer any energy to the one with greater energy. The combined energy stays the same. It is conserved. Energy is not force. F=mA.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Newton's laws, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law have not been falsified. You can't just discard them.


I'm neither trying to falsify nor discard any of these laws.

You are doing just exactly that, liar.
JackFou wrote:
I agree with you that they're valid.

Lie. You are trying to discard them.
JackFou wrote:
I just disagree with you about what they actually say.

Newton's law of motion: F=mA
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-W
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t)
That is what they say. You are trying to change these equations. You are trying to deny them.
JackFou wrote:
I'm claiming that you are misunderstanding them and misrepresenting their consequences.

No, you are completely ignoring these laws.


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
06-05-2020 21:54
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
No, that IS the argument. You are calling your own argument a strawman fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.

No, it is not. Saying it is doesn't make it so. You don't get to define my argument.
If 10 joules per second are flowing from the cold object to the warm object and 50 joules per second are flowing from the hot object to the cold object, the cold object is *not* warming the hot object. The hot object is indeed warming the cold object at 40 joules per second.

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow'.

Yes there is. If I give you $100 and you give me $75, the result is a net flow of $25 from me to you.
It's really not very hard to understand.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles does. So do you. You are again attempting to deny your own argument.

Nope I am not. It's you who cannot understand the difference in the two arguments presented. They look the same to you, hence your confusion.

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.


This is demonstrably false. Any atom or molecule will accept a photon that corresponds to an energy difference between the current energy state of the atom/molecule and a higher energy state. This difference can be smaller than the total amount of energy already absorbed by the molecule/atom.
You can test this by shining light at atoms/molecules excited by a flame and measuring the absorbance. The atoms/molecules will be able to absorb any incoming photons with an energy that corresponds to a transition to a higher energy state, even if that incoming photon has less energy than the atom/molecule already has.
In fact, the definition of a black body demands that a black body absorbs and emits at *all* wavelengths. Therefore a warmer black body would still have to be able to accept *all* incoming photons from a colder black body.

Even if what you say *were* true (it isn't), it would still not prevent a warmer body absorbing photons from a colder body. Due to the statistical nature of thermodynamics, not all atoms or molecules inside a body have the same energy. Some atoms/molecules will be will have less energy than the average, some will have more. So even if your condition were true (it isn't) the atoms/molecules with less than average energy in the warmer body could still accept photons from the atoms/molecules with above average energy in the colder body.
Edited on 06-05-2020 22:13
06-05-2020 22:10
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
Yes you are. I have already described how.


You have not described how. You have only claimed that.

Into the Night wrote:
No. Both balls have energy. They both have momentum. The combined momentum between both balls does not increase. All that happens is that they will change direction if the collide, applying an equal and opposite force to each other momentarily at the moment of collision., which will change their direction. Total momentum is conserved. Energy of the two balls is conserved. One ball may have more energy after the collision than the other. One ball may transfer some of its energy to the other, but they one with less energy does not transfer any energy to the one with greater energy. The combined energy stays the same. It is conserved. Energy is not force. F=mA.


The momentum of a three-dimensional object is a vector quantity with components in x, y and z direction.
If the faster ball has only momentum in, say, the x-direction and the slower ball only has momentum in, say, the y-direction and I set it up such that the slower ball slams into the faster ball exactly along the y-axis, the slower ball will transfer momentum along they y-axis, resulting in an increase in kinetic energy and thus momentum of the faster ball.
The slower ball will have its kinetic energy and thus momentum reduced by the same amount. The overall sum of momentum and energy of both balls remains unchanged and therefore the conservation of energy and momentum is not violated.
06-05-2020 22:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, that IS the argument. You are calling your own argument a strawman fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.

No, it is not. Saying it is doesn't make it so. You don't get to define my argument.

YOU are defining your argument. YOU are trying to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
JackFou wrote:
If 10 joules per second are flowing from the cold object to the warm object and 50 joules per second are flowing from the hot object to the cold object, the cold object is *not* warming the hot object. The hot object is indeed warming the cold object at 40 joules per second.

There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow'.

Yes there is. If I give you $100 and you give me $75, the result is a net flow of $25 from me to you.
It's really not very hard to understand.

That is not 'net flow'. Profit is not a flow. You are attempting to describe two events as the same event. False equivalence fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles does. So do you. You are again attempting to deny your own argument.

Nope I am not. It's you who cannot understand the difference in the two arguments presented. They look the same to you, hence your confusion.

Nope. Not confused. You are making the same argument. It is based on the same fallacies (errors in logic, a closed functional system, like mathematics). You are doing the equivalence of a math error in logic. That's called a fallacy.
JackFou 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.

This is demonstrably false.

Then demonstrate it. Remember, you must use the SAME system. You cannot consider any energy source or sink outside that system. Let's see you reduce entropy in that system. You may choose the system, but it MUST REMAIN THE SAME SYSTEM.
JackFou wrote:
Any atom or molecule will accept a photon that corresponds to an energy difference between the current energy state of the atom/molecule and a higher energy state.

But that difference is never negative. You keep arguing that you can use a negative difference.
JackFou wrote:
This difference can be smaller than the total amount of energy already absorbed by the molecule/atom.

That's a negative difference. Not possible. The atom will absorb nothing.
JackFou wrote:
You can test this by shining light at atoms/molecules excited by a flame and measuring the absorbance. The atoms/molecules will be able to absorb any incoming photons with an energy that corresponds to a transition to a higher energy state, even if that incoming photon has less energy than the atom/molecule already has.

Nope. No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has.
JackFou wrote:
In fact, the definition of a black body demands that a black body absorbs and emits at *all* wavelengths.

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.
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.

Denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. You cannot just ignore these. No atom or molecule will accept a photon of less energy than what that atom or molecule already has.
JackFou wrote:
Due to the statistical nature of thermodynamics, not all atoms or molecules inside a body have the same energy.

Thermodynamics does not have a statistical nature. It applies to materials, right on down to the atoms themselves. It even applies to the constituents of those atoms.
JackFou wrote:
Some atoms/molecules will be will have less energy than the average, some will have more.

You are AGAIN trying to compare two systems as the same system. You have a real problem with this. False equivalence fallacy.
]JackFou wrote:
So even if your condition were true (it isn't) the atoms/molecules with less than average energy in the warmer body could still accept photons from the atoms/molecules with above average energy in the colder body.

False equivalence fallacy. You cannot compare two systems as the same system. An individual atom is not the same as a mole of atoms.


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
06-05-2020 22:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Yes you are. I have already described how.


You have not described how. You have only claimed that.

I have described how. Argument of the stone fallacy.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. Both balls have energy. They both have momentum. The combined momentum between both balls does not increase. All that happens is that they will change direction if the collide, applying an equal and opposite force to each other momentarily at the moment of collision., which will change their direction. Total momentum is conserved. Energy of the two balls is conserved. One ball may have more energy after the collision than the other. One ball may transfer some of its energy to the other, but they one with less energy does not transfer any energy to the one with greater energy. The combined energy stays the same. It is conserved. Energy is not force. F=mA.


The momentum of a three-dimensional object is a vector quantity with components in x, y and z direction.

The z direction is ignored in this case, since we are talking about reactions on a plane surface.
JackFou wrote:
If the faster ball has only momentum in, say, the x-direction and the slower ball only has momentum in, say, the y-direction and I set it up such that the slower ball slams into the faster ball exactly along the y-axis, the slower ball will transfer momentum along they y-axis, resulting in an increase in kinetic energy and thus momentum of the faster ball.

WRONG. The slower ball does NOT increase momentum of the faster ball. Momentum between the two balls is conserved. The faster ball will transmit some of its momentum to the slower ball instead.

There is no such thing as an absolute stationary object. Either ball may be considered a zero reference point, and the other ball's speed and direction may be compared to the reference point as 'stationary'.

A collision using this reference point only results in a change of direction of the other ball. Combined momentum is conserved. Combined energy is conserved.

Or you can use the faster ball as the zero reference point.

Colliding with the other ball only causes that ball to change direction. Combined momentum is zero. Combined energy is zero.

Or you can use the felt as the zero reference point.

A faster ball will transfer some (or all!) of it's momentum to the slower ball. Both balls may change direction. Combined momentum is conserved. Combined energy is conserved.

NO energy flows from the slower ball to the faster ball. No momentum flows from the slower ball to the faster ball. In all cases, combined energy is conserved. Combined momentum is conserved.

JackFou wrote:
The slower ball will have its kinetic energy and thus momentum reduced by the same amount. The overall sum of momentum and energy of both balls remains unchanged and therefore the conservation of energy and momentum is not violated.

WRONG. The slower ball will have increased momentum, taking some of it from the faster ball.

F=mA. You are denying this law. This is Newton's law of motion.

Apparently you suck at billiards too.


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 06-05-2020 22:39
06-05-2020 23:14
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
Then demonstrate it.

It has already been demonstrated. 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.

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".
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.

This is exactly what happens in the case of hydrogen. You can find so-called "Balmer absorption lines" in the spectra of stars.

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.
Edited on 07-05-2020 00:04
07-05-2020 01:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
JackFou wrote:Wrong. If you look at individual water molecules, they move in random directions at any given point in time due to thermal motion.

Hey genius, are you referring to the last time you looked at individual water molecules?



JackFou wrote: Fluid dynamics is not trivial.

EXACTLY Mr. Genius ... in science, water flows downhill. Water does not flow uphill. ... *or* are you here to teach us rubes the new science you have developed?

IBdaMann wrote:The direction of flow of electric current is simply a convention. In fact, "conventional current flow" assumes current flow from positive to negative.

EXACTLY Mr. Genius, the idea of electricity flowing from positive to negative is a mere convention of convenience because it eliminates a bunch of negative signs. However, in SCIENCE, electrons flow, not the protons. Electrons, happen to be negatively charged, by the way, and they flow to a positive charge. Hey, Mr. Genius, why do I have to teach you the fundamentals? Didn't you ever go to school? The reality is that electricity flows from negative to positive, but you think that's wrong, probably because of this new, exciting science that you have come here to teach us rubes.

Please commence the teaching ...

JackFou wrote:If you want to talk about the movement of electrons inside a conductor, you're still wrong.

Well you're about to win the Nobel Prize, I can tell.

JackFou wrote: Individual electrons do indeed move back and forth.

I presume they do, ... but when I am using SCIENCE, I don't and instead follow the falsifiable model because no other presumptions matter. I use the equations because they mirror reality and no one, not even you, has ever observed an individual electron.

Further, science computes the flow of electrical current ... not of separate currents that are calculated for some "net flow." Of course, I presume that you are going to show me to be totally in error with this phenomenal science that you are going to teach to us rubes. I really can't wait.



JackFou wrote: Only if you look at the overall average motion of many electrons do you get a net flow following a gradient.

A gradient? Wow, you got me there. I use CURRENT = VOLTAGE * RESISTANCE
and there's no gradient there. What do you use to calculate current?

JackFou wrote:I hope you do agree with me that all objects above 0 Kelvin emit thermal radiation.

I hope you agree with me that thermal radiation is not thermal energy.



JackFou wrote: If that is true then both the hot and the cold object emit thermal radiation in the form of photons.

I hope you don't mind if I ignore your attempt to change the topic from thermal energy to electromagnetic energy.

Let me know when you can stay focused on thermal energy.



JackFou wrote: If you believe that exactly 0 joules per second are transferred from a cold to a warm object, please do explain to me how either the cold object knows how to strategically aim its photons away from the hot object or how the hot object knows which photons originate from the cold object and how it can specifically avoid absorbing those.

Well, it would appear that even inanimate objects are smart enough to not confuse thermal energy with electromagnetic energy. I think we can all agree that it takes a special kind of stupid to insist on confusing the two, right? Even non-living molecules get it right. How easy is that?

JackFou wrote: If you claim that thermal radiation being emitted by one object and absorbed by another object does not represent a flow of thermal energy, then please, do explain to me, in your own words, how radiative heat transfer happens, mechanistically on the scale of atoms. How does thermal energy get from A to B through a vacuum without using photons or electromagnetic radiation?

Hey genius, YOU are the one trying to defeat the 2nd law of thermodynamics and who doesn't understand the difference between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy. Lamp posts get it right. Are you dumber than a lamp post?

IBdaMann wrote:So you don't agree with me that the first and second law of thermodynamics only apply to isolated systems?

I do not obey Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not define my terminology.

I use "open/closed" system. I do not use the term "isolated" system. If you have a question for me, please use my terminology or sit quiet for the rest of the lecture.

JackFou wrote: You obviously have not independently derived the laws of thermodynamics from first principles through experimentation.

Nobody has. Nobody ever did. The laws of thermodynamics are mere observations that apparently always hold true. In fact there has been no experiment showing them to be false, ergo we go with them until someone actually demonstrates one or more of the laws not holding true.

Which brings us to tmiddles and now to you as well. If you are going to doubt the laws of thermodynamics then you need to come up with a demonstration of one or more not holding true. tmiddles has been on tap since August. You are now on the clock as well. It's time to put up or shut up.

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.

JackFou wrote: When you say that the 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, you're clearly basing this assertion on some source which you consider authoritative.

Incorrect. My assertion is that no one has ever demonstrated the creation of energy from nothing and no one has ever destroyed energy into nothing.

Hey, Mr. Genius, based on what source do you doubt the 1st law of thermodynamics? Wikipeida? tmiddles? Why have you not pressed him to explain how he plans to demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? Why do you blindly accept whatever WACKY violations of physics he mandates you believe? Are you his bitch? Does he have you bent over right now? Are you afraid of him? I don't see you peppering him with any questions. Why is that? You aren't demanding he explain anything? Why is that? Is some "religious" ceremony going on of which I am unaware?

JackFou wrote:There is no closed system here which I did explain in the very next sentence.

Yes, but then you proceeded to discuss entropy. There is no such thing as entropy in an open system. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only within the context of a closed system.

You had better hit the books again (and avoid Wikipeida).

JackFou wrote: I claim the exact opposite namely that the first law of thermodynamics only holds for closed/isolated systems.

Wrong, Mr. Genius ... the first law of thermodynamics holds always and everywhere. There are no contextual requirements.

You can never create energy out of nothing and you can never destroy energy into nothing, open system or not.

JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, doesn't the "re" in "re-emit" imply the photons are "re-emitted"? Doesn't that mean they have to be, you know, the same.

Only if you're trying to play semantic games.

Well Mr. Genius, start writing what you mean and start meaning what you write.


JackFou wrote: Photons don't have names or numbers.

EXACTLY ... so let's stop pretending that you somehow have the magic power to see individual photons and atoms, and that your arguments somehow get to violate science by merely mentioning individual photons and atoms.

Deal?

JackFou wrote:For all intents and purposes, two photons of the same wavelength are indistinguishable.

For all intents and purposes, two photons of different wavelengths are not the same. Ergo, if photon A of wavelength X is absorbed and somewhere there is a photon B of wavelength Y emitted, we do not say that photon A was "re-emitted" unless we are Wikipedia warriors on a mission be dumber than lamp posts.



So ... official time/date stamp is 07-05-2020 00:32 for you to join tmiddles as being on tap to demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer (all other forms of energy ignored). Good luck. We rubes are standing by.

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 3 of 10<12345>>>





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