Remember me
▼ Content

Open vs closed/ 2nd law



Page 2 of 2<12
23-02-2020 03:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3491)
IBdaMann wrote:
...tell me where and in which one that thermal energy is shown to flow from cooler to warmer.

You love presenting your own made up statement (one I've never used) as though it's standard language and something I claimed. None of your words are defined and watch you refuse to define them.

Hey IBD what do you mean when you say "flow" ?

I wont bother bringing the dictionary into this as you love to be novel.

I claimed, in my sig, that radiance from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer ones. I've proven it in calculations repeatedly. You've had no rebuttal at all other than selective blindness.

This is just wacked out:
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.


"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
23-02-2020 04:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: Hey IBD what do you mean when you say "flow" ?

Thermal energy is what gives matter temperature. Only matter can contain thermal energy.

Ergo, with respect to thermal energy, "flow" refers to the movement or transition of thermal energy from matter to matter, independent of what happens to other forms of energy.

tmiddles wrote: I wont bother bringing the dictionary into this ...

One of the smartest decisions on your part in a long while.

tmiddles wrote: I claimed, in my sig, that radiance from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer ones.

Yes, you have claimed it. You are in error. The error is in your assurance that photons are "absorbed". You define that as converting to thermal energy despite knowing that you cannot show any increase in thermal energy per that event. All you can observe is monotone decreasing thermal energy in the body. Ergo your claim is dismissed.

tmiddles wrote: I've proven it in calculations repeatedly.

Nope. You have only illustrated that "what we know" is that thermal energy in the warmer body specifically decreases. It's "what we know." Ergo, there must be some photons that are not absorbed because there is never an uptick in the temperature (amount of thermal energy) in the warmer body. Never. Ever. Never, ever, ever. It's "what we know".

Still waiting for that repeatable demonstration.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-02-2020 06:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3491)
IBdaMann wrote:..."flow" refers to the movement or transition of thermal energy from matter to matter,...
So your personal definition for "Flow" is that it cannot apply to radiance. It is impossible due to your definition.

This is NOT the definition found anywhere else and it is also no my own personal definition.

Thank you for clarifying what the word means for you.

You'll notice I don't use the word so we don't have a conflict in our ideas at all.

Your "question", pretending to be a rephrasing of my own, was really just a joke then since your own definition disregards radiance entirely.

My question was if radiance is absorbed from a cooler object by a warmer one. It is. Don't call it flow on my account, because I don't.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I claimed, in my sig, that radiance from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer ones.

Yes, you have claimed it. You are in error.
Prove it. Solve one equation in thermodynamics (there is one in my sig) and explain how radiance from a cooler object is not absorbed by a warmer one.

The presumption that the presence of something is only shown by it's increase is absurd. If a known movement out is offset by a movement in this is easily calculated. That is no different than calculating an increase.

So prove it. It's your wacky claim and the burden is yours. I've disproven it repeatedly.

Also you continually dodge this question:
IF radiance isn't absorbed what is it doing instead? Obviously not selfies and backflips. You post on this is incoherent on what DOES happen.

IBdaMann wrote:You have only illustrated that "what we know" is that thermal energy in the warmer body specifically decreases....
OK now try that again but include what we KNOW about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Oops!!! Yeah we know that too.

"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
23-02-2020 07:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: So your personal definition for "Flow" is that it cannot apply to radiance. It is impossible due to your definition.

Only if you cannot read.

Let's go with that and assume you cannot read. Next ...

tmiddles wrote: This is NOT the definition found anywhere else and it is also no my own personal definition.

Why did you ask in the first place?

tmiddles wrote:Your "question", pretending to be a rephrasing of my own, was really just a joke then since your own definition disregards radiance entirely.

Your dismissal of my definition based on my lack of conflating thermal energy with electromagnetic energy is a clear demonstration of your scientific genius.

tmiddles wrote:My question was if radiance is absorbed from a cooler object by a warmer one. It is.

Have you searched your omniscience to see if perhaps the reason your claim cannot be demonstrated is because it is erroneous?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I claimed, in my sig, that radiance from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer ones.

Yes, you have claimed it. You are in error.
Prove it. Solve one equation in thermodynamics (there is one in my sig) and explain how radiance from a cooler object is not absorbed by a warmer one.

Nope. I will completely accept your claim ... right after you provide a repeatable demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer ...

... and I asked first.

tmiddles wrote: IF radiance isn't absorbed what is it doing instead?

What did Heizenberg have to say on the matter?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You have only illustrated that "what we know" is that thermal energy in the warmer body specifically decreases....
OK now try that again but include what we KNOW about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

Right after I try that again but include what I know about the Atlético Madrid starting rotation and a few other equally irrelevant things.

It would seem that you will never stop conflating thermal energy with electromagnetic energy. I have added 20)g to the list: conflating different forms of 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
23-02-2020 07:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3491)
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's go with that and assume you cannot read.
And leave these jokes of yours untold! Not a chance.

So let's clarify:
Is the following something you'd describe using "flow" as you define it:
Object A emits radiance that is absorbed by Object B and converted to thermal energy

Is that a "Flow"? How exactly would you describe that?

IBdaMann wrote:
provide a repeatable demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer ...
We will need a coherent definition first. Let's work on that.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:OK now try that again but include what we KNOW about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
...irrelevant...
Stefan Boltzmann is irrelevant to radiance ?!?

So let me get this straight:

You decide "I'm talking about thermal energy and nothing else" so you willfully blind yourself to what it taking place with radiance? Why?

"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
23-02-2020 08:29
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
IBdaMann wrote:

Right after I try that again but include what I know about the Atlético Madrid starting rotation and a few other equally irrelevant things.




It's starting XI you idiot.

Add association football to the list of subjects you know nothing about yet offer your daft opinions on.

Do you think they will leave Costa in?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
23-02-2020 08:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:So let's clarify:
Is the following something you'd describe using "flow" as you define it:
Object A emits radiance ...

This would pertain to the flow of electromagnetic radiation, yes. Of course that has a different definition. Electromagnetic radiation is not associated with matter and therefore can flow forever into empty space.

I thought we were talking about thermal energy? Let me go ahead and give you an example:

Let Delta be a quantity of thermal energy. Let A and B be bodies in a closed system.

At time T0, Body A has quantity A(th) of thermal energy and Body B has quantity B(th) of thermal energy

At time T1, Body A has quantity A(th) - Delta of thermal energy and Body B has quantity B(th) + Delta of thermal energy

Per the IBDaDefinition of thermal energy flow, we can say that Delta has flowed from A to B.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
provide a repeatable demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer ...
We will need a coherent definition first. Let's work on that.

... and now we have it. The ball is in your court.


.


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
23-02-2020 09:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3491)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So let's clarify:
Is the following something you'd describe using "flow" as you define it:
Object A emits radiance ...

This would pertain to the flow of electromagnetic radiation, yes. Of course that has a different definition. Electromagnetic radiation is not associated with matter and therefore can flow forever into empty space.

I thought we were talking about thermal energy?
No IBD, we were talking about your personal definition for the words you employ. So you get the say so.

IBdaMann wrote:
At time T1, Body A has quantity A(th) - Delta of thermal energy and Body B has quantity B(th) + Delta of thermal energy ...we can say that Delta has flowed from A to B.
So your definition has nothing to do with whether or not radiance is absorbed and converted to thermal energy, it only deals with the tally of thermal energy at the end correct?

IBdaMann wrote:... and now we have it.
Do we? Do I understand things correctly above as you define them?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
23-02-2020 11:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: So your definition has nothing to do with whether or not radiance is absorbed and converted to thermal energy, it only deals with the tally of thermal energy at the end correct?

We have a winner! The light bulb came one! Well done.

Yes, the flow of thermal energy only deals with the flow of thermal energy. Other forms of energy need not apply.



.


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
23-02-2020 11:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3491)
IBdaMann wrote:Other forms of energy need not apply.
OK fine. That's a self satisfied position then. A bit like "who's buried in Grant's tomb".

Unfortunately this still leave the matter of:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object...

This is still false. You can't make sense of thermodynamics of almost any kind with that idea in your head.

"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
23-02-2020 23:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: This is still false. You can't make sense of thermodynamics of almost any kind with that idea in your head.

You are projecting your inability to make sense of thermodynamics.

I am still waiting for your repeatable example that shows 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
24-02-2020 03:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3491)
IBdaMann wrote:
I am still waiting for your repeatable example...
Responded to that here also.
24-02-2020 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13825)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Other forms of energy need not apply.
OK fine. That's a self satisfied position then. A bit like "who's buried in Grant's tomb".

Unfortunately this still leave the matter of:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object...

This is still false. You can't make sense of thermodynamics of almost any kind with that idea in your head.


Mantra 20a2...10 (electromagnetic energy<->thermal energy)...

Nothing requires a photon to be absorbed.


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
24-02-2020 20:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13825)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I am still waiting for your repeatable example...
Responded to that here also.


Lie.
* You presented a contrived example as a proof.
* You are also still ignoring the different between electromagnetic energy and thermal energy. They are different.
* You are also still assuming all photons are the same. They are not.
* You are also assuming that a photon must be absorbed. They do not.
* You are still ignoring the difference between temperature and thermal energy. They are different.
* You are still ignoring quantum physics. No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has.
* 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
24-02-2020 22:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3491)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Responded to that here also.

Lie.
I'll respond there.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Open vs closed/ 2nd law:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Independent and open technology gives us a real chance to reach global climate targets719-10-2020 23:34
2nd Amendment102-10-2020 04:18
Brandolini's Law- Applicable to Climate Change Hoax028-06-2020 15:26
1st law, 2nd law, stefan boltzman, plank1711-06-2020 16:22
BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.9705-06-2020 19:21
▲ 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