Remember me
▼ Content

Scientific Consensus



Page 4 of 4<<<234
25-05-2018 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9826)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.
Heat is the flow of



..What he's posted is found in any online search. By not showing his source of information his posts become nothing more than plagiarism.
..And GasGuzxler, you accept what he's posted as itn's own work. This IMO is why he calls referencing other people's work as "holy links" and states that such people are not thinking for themselves.
This makes any discussion a waste of time IMO.


Perhaps you can enlighten us. Who am I plagiarizing?


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2018 20:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.

Too often we describe temperature as heat. It is not.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Can it be trapped? No. Can it be slowed? ITN will say no...still can't get my brain around that one.

However, if you use his river analogy, water is not flow.
If you reduce the flow, say with a dam, you get a flood.

The same with heat. An object will remain warmer(temperature) be reducing heat.

Insulation REDUCES heat.

...let the corrections begin.


Contrary to whatever nightmare has written "heat" is a measure of the amount of energy available at any particular point. If the surroundings contains less energy, there can be a transfer of thermal energy via two pathways: 1. By thermal radiation in the form of electromagnetic waves or 2. In the form of direct mechanical transfer via matter to matter transfer of one active molecule bumping into another and transferring heat in the form of kinetic energy.

Energy Transfer: The sun has near a blackbody emission of electromagnetic radiation. This is emitted in all directions and hence is spread out by the increasing area that this radiation must cover before it reaches the distance of Earth's orbit. What reaches the outer reaches of the atmosphere is 340 watts per square meter.

We CAN say that 29% of this is reflected and use high altitude clouds and Rayleigh scattering as a source but it is a bit more complicated than that but we won't go into that now.

23% of the energy goes directly into the atmosphere which is composed almost entirely of Nitrogen and Oxygen whose absorption lines are in the visible light bands and above. Again this absorption is extremely complex and again we won't discuss it.

48% of the energy reaches the surface of the Earth and is absorbed by the surface materials. Some of the materials such as water absorbs almost the entire spectrum as it penetrates to the depths. Areas of the globe that are mostly white such as Bonneville Salt Flats or the ice of the Arctic regions reflect a great deal of this. These reflections are mostly in the same visible wavelengths that were applied. Most of the sunlight striking the surface however are darker surfaces or plant material. And while the lower latitudes are struck more or less directly with sunlight the higher latitudes have light striking the ground at a very obtuse angle so that even without ice it would have a very high probability of reflection.

Now because the surface materials are much cooler than the applied energy the transfer of thermal energy warms them, but to a temperature far below the wavelengths that were applied. This puts the radiated thermal energy from these areas into the lower infrared radiation area.

Now the matter that composes the Earth has a very high density in comparison to the empty space this light came through. (We could discuss that as well but will not. Let us just say that the hydrogen that composes the Sun is so dense due to its gravity caused compression that the surface temperature is only 7% of the interior temperature. It takes 2 million years for light generated in the interior fusion to reach the surface.)

So the applied energy, about 160 watts per square meter, has a hell of a lot of material to heat and through conduction this spreads throughout the surface layers. It doesn't go very deep because of the rotational period of the Earth turns the energy off for half of the 24 hour day. And during the night cycle energy is continuously emitted without any replenishment from the Sun.

In any case, the thermal energy that the surface contains has wavelengths between about 10 uMeters and perhaps 35 uMeters. This is well below the Sun's emissions.

Now to get back the thermodynamics.

Unlike nightmare has claimed the first law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. So his preposterous claim that heat is destroyed in a thermos bottle breaks the most basic tenants of science.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases. This means that warmer regions are always transferring heat to cooler regions. So the hotter end of the copper tube is transferring heat to both the surrounding atmosphere but also through the copper tube which is more conductive than the thinner matter of the atmosphere. Unlike nightmares stupid claim the heat is NOT destroyed.

The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero. But this can also be interpreted to say that two points of equal temperature do not transfer heat between each other. Though actually they do, except for they both transfer the equal amount of energy between each other so that the temperature of both bodies do not change. But they will slowly cool at they transfer energy to the surrounding areas.

The big question here - since anyone knows that if you heat a branding iron long enough the handle will burn you, why would nightmare EVER think that somehow heat is destroyed? Why would he not understand insulation? These are human experiences and do not require any basic understandings of science.
25-05-2018 22:03
James___
★★★★☆
(1697)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.
Heat is the flow of



..What he's posted is found in any online search. By not showing his source of information his posts become nothing more than plagiarism.
..And GasGuzxler, you accept what he's posted as itn's own work. This IMO is why he calls referencing other people's work as "holy links" and states that such people are not thinking for themselves.
This makes any discussion a waste of time IMO.


Perhaps you can enlighten us. Who am I plagiarizing?




.. The very science that you reject. You can't have it both ways itn. Scientists say heat flows, they also say it can be slowed aka trapped which is true.
.. You really don't understand science. It shows in your posts.
25-05-2018 22:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.
Heat is the flow of



..What he's posted is found in any online search. By not showing his source of information his posts become nothing more than plagiarism.
..And GasGuzxler, you accept what he's posted as itn's own work. This IMO is why he calls referencing other people's work as "holy links" and states that such people are not thinking for themselves.
This makes any discussion a waste of time IMO.


Perhaps you can enlighten us. Who am I plagiarizing?




.. The very science that you reject. You can't have it both ways itn. Scientists say heat flows, they also say it can be slowed aka trapped which is true.
.. You really don't understand science. It shows in your posts.


I don't know if he knows science or not but there is definitely something going on with him. He quotes the Stefan-Boltzman theory but he doesn't actually know how it works. His understanding of the laws of thermodynamics will one day be clear and the next he blabbers totally incorrect things that even go completely against the laws of thermodynamics.

He doesn't know that all but less than one percent of the heat the Sun shows upon the Earth must be emitted to have an energy balance and that is electromagnetic radiation. And hence it is detectable and decipherable.

He is unaware that coal is fossilized plant matter. He believes oil to be something that has no connection to the basic substances of plant life. That natural gas is nothing more than a plant fart.

This is why I have a strong feeling that perhaps he is either suffering from a medical condition or using drugs. Fentinyl causes the sort of hallucinations that he has put out several times. The fixed belief that man cannot measure the mean global temperature and misunderstanding that even if man could not get a precise measure it wouldn't make any difference since we are trying to measure changes. (In fact we can measure MGT to within 0.5% which is good enough for government work.)
25-05-2018 22:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9826)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.

Too often we describe temperature as heat. It is not.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Can it be trapped? No. Can it be slowed? ITN will say no...still can't get my brain around that one.

However, if you use his river analogy, water is not flow.
If you reduce the flow, say with a dam, you get a flood.

The same with heat. An object will remain warmer(temperature) be reducing heat.

Insulation REDUCES heat.

...let the corrections begin.


Contrary to whatever nightmare has written "heat" is a measure of the amount of energy available at any particular point.

WRONG. Heat is not energy. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the energy itself.
Wake wrote:
If the surroundings contains less energy, there can be a transfer of thermal energy via two pathways:

Three, actually. Conduction, convection, and radiance.
Wake wrote:
1. By thermal radiation in the form of electromagnetic waves

Radiance is light, not thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
or 2. In the form of direct mechanical transfer via matter to matter transfer of one active molecule bumping into another and transferring heat in the form of kinetic energy.

We you got one right at least.

...and 3. convection, the movement of thermal energy by dissipation in lower densities.
Wake wrote:
Energy Transfer: The sun has near a blackbody emission of electromagnetic radiation. This is emitted in all directions and hence is spread out by the increasing area that this radiation must cover before it reaches the distance of Earth's orbit. What reaches the outer reaches of the atmosphere is 340 watts per square meter.

So far so good.
Wake wrote:
We CAN say that 29% of this is reflected and use high altitude clouds and Rayleigh scattering as a source but it is a bit more complicated than that but we won't go into that now.

Because YOU DON'T KNOW. No one knows the emissivity of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
23% of the energy goes directly into the atmosphere which is composed almost entirely of Nitrogen and Oxygen whose absorption lines are in the visible light bands and above. Again this absorption is extremely complex and again we won't discuss it.

Argument from randU. No one knows the emissivity of the Earth or its atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
48% of the energy reaches the surface of the Earth and is absorbed by the surface materials.

Argument from randU.
Wake wrote:
Some of the materials such as water absorbs almost the entire spectrum as it penetrates to the depths.

WRONG. Water is heated by infrared light. Even in the deepest part of the oceans, there is still light...just not visible light.
Wake wrote:
Areas of the globe that are mostly white such as Bonneville Salt Flats or the ice of the Arctic regions reflect a great deal of this.

Someday you'll learn that visible light is a very small portion of what the Sun radiates.
Wake wrote:
These reflections are mostly in the same visible wavelengths that were applied.

Visible light absorption does not cause much, if any, heating.

BTW, is that why the Salt Flats are so damn hot? LOL

Wake wrote:
Most of the sunlight striking the surface however are darker surfaces or plant material.
Is that why grass is cooler to walk on than a concrete driveway right next to it? LOL
[quote]Wake wrote:
And while the lower latitudes are struck more or less directly with sunlight the higher latitudes have light striking the ground at a very obtuse angle so that even without ice it would have a very high probability of reflection.

Nope. Less profile.
Wake wrote:
Now because the surface materials are much cooler than the applied energy the transfer of thermal energy warms them, but to a temperature far below the wavelengths that were applied.

Temperature doesn't have a wavelength.
Wake wrote:
This puts the radiated thermal energy from these areas into the lower infrared radiation area.

Radiance is light, not thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
...deleted needless detail about the interior of the Sun...
So the applied energy, about 160 watts per square meter,

No one knows the emissivity of the Earth. It's not possible to measure.
Wake wrote:
...deleted needless detail of depth of heating...
In any case, the thermal energy that the surface contains has wavelengths between about 10 uMeters and perhaps 35 uMeters. This is well below the Sun's emissions.

The Sun emits from X-Rays all the way down through the radio bands.
Wake wrote:
Now to get back the thermodynamics.
Unlike nightmare has claimed the first law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.

WRONG. Energy cannot be created or destroyed...ever.
Wake wrote:
So his preposterous claim that heat is destroyed

Heat is not energy.
Wake wrote:
in a thermos bottle breaks the most basic tenants of science.

A Thermos bottle (proper noun) does not destroy heat. It reduces it.
Wake wrote:
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases.

WRONG. The second law of thermodynamics applies to ANY system. It need not be isolated or closed.
Wake wrote:
This means that warmer regions are always transferring heat to cooler regions.

True. The 2nd law defines the direction of heat.
Wake wrote:
So the hotter end of the copper tube is transferring heat to both the surrounding atmosphere but also through the copper tube which is more conductive than the thinner matter of the atmosphere. Unlike nightmares stupid claim the heat is NOT destroyed.

A copper tube does not 'transfer' heat. Heat IS transfer. Heat is not energy.
Wake wrote:
The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero. But this can also be interpreted to say that two points of equal temperature do not transfer heat between each other.

WRONG. That's the 2nd law that says that, not the 3rd.

According to the 3rd law, entropy is ZERO at absolute zero. Not any other constant value.

It is one of the reasons why we will never be able to obtain absolute zero.

Wake wrote:
Though actually they do, except for they both transfer the equal amount of energy between each other so that the temperature of both bodies do not change.

Two regions of equal temperature do not transfer energy at all. There is no heat.
Wake wrote:
But they will slowly cool at they transfer energy to the surrounding areas.

Now you are changing to a different system, which includes a surrounding area as a heat sink. Under these conditions, you are correct.
Wake wrote:
The big question here - since anyone knows that if you heat a branding iron long enough the handle will burn you, why would nightmare EVER think that somehow heat is destroyed?

Heat is not energy. It doesn't prevent a branding iron from getting hot. A branding iron works because it is heating the skin of an unfortunate cow.
Wake wrote:
Why would he not understand insulation?

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that does not understand insulation. Insulation works by reducing heat.
Wake wrote:
These are human experiences and do not require any basic understandings of science.

But it sure helps to know it.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2018 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9826)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.
Heat is the flow of



..What he's posted is found in any online search. By not showing his source of information his posts become nothing more than plagiarism.
..And GasGuzxler, you accept what he's posted as itn's own work. This IMO is why he calls referencing other people's work as "holy links" and states that such people are not thinking for themselves.
This makes any discussion a waste of time IMO.


Perhaps you can enlighten us. Who am I plagiarizing?




.. The very science that you reject.

WTF????
James___ wrote:
You can't have it both ways itn. Scientists say heat flows,

WRONG. Heat IS flow. Heat itself doesn't flow.
James___ wrote:
they also say it can be slowed aka trapped which is true.

WRONG. Heat cannot be trapped or 'slowed'. Heat has no inherent speed. You cannot trap heat.
James___ wrote:
.. You really don't understand science. It shows in your posts.

??? Yet you claim I am plagiarizing science. WTF???

Welcome to your new paradox.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2018 22:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9826)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.
Heat is the flow of



..What he's posted is found in any online search. By not showing his source of information his posts become nothing more than plagiarism.
..And GasGuzxler, you accept what he's posted as itn's own work. This IMO is why he calls referencing other people's work as "holy links" and states that such people are not thinking for themselves.
This makes any discussion a waste of time IMO.


Perhaps you can enlighten us. Who am I plagiarizing?




.. The very science that you reject. You can't have it both ways itn. Scientists say heat flows, they also say it can be slowed aka trapped which is true.
.. You really don't understand science. It shows in your posts.


I don't know if he knows science or not but there is definitely something going on with him. He quotes the Stefan-Boltzman theory but he doesn't actually know how it works.

WRONG. It is YOU that is constantly ignoring or attempting to change it. It is YOU that denies the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
His understanding of the laws of thermodynamics will one day be clear and the next he blabbers totally incorrect things that even go completely against the laws of thermodynamics.

You just demonstrated that your concept of thermodynamics is horribly flawed.
Wake wrote:
He doesn't know that all but less than one percent of the heat the Sun shows upon the Earth must be emitted to have an energy balance and that is electromagnetic radiation. And hence it is detectable and decipherable.

No, it isn't. You can't tell the difference between Planck radiance and reflections or refractions.
Wake wrote:
He is unaware that coal is fossilized plant matter.

It isn't. It's carbon. Carbon is an element, not a plant.
Wake wrote:
He believes oil to be something that has no connection to the basic substances of plant life.

It doesn't. There is no plant material in oil at all. Oil can be synthesized from non-biological materials using conditions that commonly exist underground.
Wake wrote:
That natural gas is nothing more than a plant fart.

WRONG. Natural gas is synthesized along with oil in the same way that oil is.
Wake wrote:
...deleted psychoquackery...
The fixed belief that man cannot measure the mean global temperature

He can't. You are denying statistical mathematics again.
Wake wrote:
and misunderstanding that even if man could not get a precise measure it wouldn't make any difference since we are trying to measure changes.

You have to be able to make an absolute measurement before you can measure a change.
Wake wrote:
(In fact we can measure MGT to within 0.5% which is good enough for government work.)

Argument from randU. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2018 23:43
James___
★★★★☆
(1697)
itn,
If you want to make things easier for yourself, learn some about statistical analysis. Just as with any graph, different longitudes and latitudes can be graphed for rainfall, temperature, dew point, etc.
.. A sampling is all that's necessary. This is why with Monckton I suggested 4 cities. But for some reason you need to be disruptive.
.. What has been missed about heat is that in our atmosphere it's almost all either solar or background radiation. Even emissions from the earth can be considered radiation, it's just in the infrared.
25-05-2018 23:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
itn,
If you want to make things easier for yourself, learn some about statistical analysis. Just as with any graph, different longitudes and latitudes can be graphed for rainfall, temperature, dew point, etc.
.. A sampling is all that's necessary. This is why with Monckton I suggested 4 cities. But for some reason you need to be disruptive.
.. What has been missed about heat is that in our atmosphere it's almost all either solar or background radiation. Even emissions from the earth can be considered radiation, it's just in the infrared.


All electro-magnetic waves are "radiation" since they have a point of radiation.

It is only used by common people and quantum physicists to mean some sort of nuclear reaction. In this case it is used to mean moving subatomic particles that have enough energy to ionize other particles.
26-05-2018 00:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9826)
James___ wrote:
itn,
If you want to make things easier for yourself, learn some about statistical analysis.

Already know it, thanks.
James___ wrote:
Just as with any graph,

Statistical analysis is not a graph.
James___ wrote:
different longitudes and latitudes can be graphed for rainfall, temperature, dew point, etc.

Meaningless for statistical analysis.
James___ wrote:
.. A sampling is all that's necessary.

WRONG. Statistical mathematics requires the calculation of the margin or error. Sampling is by a very strict set of rules as well. Sampling must be by randN, using only the raw data (otherwise it's not by randN). That means you can choose a data point only once, not twice, not 1.8 times, not 0.3 times, ONCE.

The margin of error is a number calculated from the population variance. What is the source of your variance and how do you justify it?

James___ wrote:
This is why with Monckton I suggested 4 cities.

Not enough. The margin of error from such a summary is too great. You're guessing.
James___ wrote:
But for some reason you need to be disruptive.

No, you are ignoring the math.
James___ wrote:
.. What has been missed about heat is that in our atmosphere it's almost all either solar or background radiation.

It is by solar radiance. Background radiation does not heat our atmosphere.
James___ wrote:
Even emissions from the earth can be considered radiation, it's just in the infrared.

I'll ignore your bad terminology for this one.

The Planck radiance from Earth is in the infrared. So what?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-05-2018 00:18
26-05-2018 00:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9826)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
itn,
If you want to make things easier for yourself, learn some about statistical analysis. Just as with any graph, different longitudes and latitudes can be graphed for rainfall, temperature, dew point, etc.
.. A sampling is all that's necessary. This is why with Monckton I suggested 4 cities. But for some reason you need to be disruptive.
.. What has been missed about heat is that in our atmosphere it's almost all either solar or background radiation. Even emissions from the earth can be considered radiation, it's just in the infrared.


All electro-magnetic waves are "radiation" since they have a point of radiation.

They are both radiation and radiance. Radiation is the general term for anything emitted from something or moving outward from a point and includes nuclear radiation, cosmic radiation, light, and even waves caused by stones dropped in ponds. Radiance is specific to light.


The Parrot Killer
26-05-2018 01:48
James___
★★★★☆
(1697)
... I'll leave the 2 of you alone. It's been real, it's been fun but it hasn't been real fun.
26-05-2018 04:35
James___
★★★★☆
(1697)
Thought I'd leave you with this,

Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from one meter to one millimeter; with frequencies between 300 MHz (100 cm) and 300 GHz (0.1 cm).

Simply divide 293,000 by wave length to get frequency. And frequency is the number of cycles per second. Since microwaves heat food we know that heat has velocity. It's velocity is the speed of light.
26-05-2018 05:39
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Into the Night wrote:
They are both radiation and radiance. Radiation is the general term for anything emitted from something or moving outward from a point and includes nuclear radiation, cosmic radiation, light, and even waves caused by stones dropped in ponds. Radiance is specific to light.


You're not coming across too radiant.
What's the term for bullshit missy?


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
26-05-2018 05:44
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
James___ wrote:
Thought I'd leave you with this,

Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from one meter to one millimeter; with frequencies between 300 MHz (100 cm) and 300 GHz (0.1 cm).

Simply divide 293,000 by wave length to get frequency. And frequency is the number of cycles per second. Since microwaves heat food we know that heat has velocity. It's velocity is the speed of light.


And you sound like a cock as well to be blunt.
What are you explaining?
And who to?


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
26-05-2018 06:19
James___
★★★★☆
(1697)
monckton wrote:
James___ wrote:
Thought I'd leave you with this,

Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from one meter to one millimeter; with frequencies between 300 MHz (100 cm) and 300 GHz (0.1 cm).

Simply divide 293,000 by wave length to get frequency. And frequency is the number of cycles per second. Since microwaves heat food we know that heat has velocity. It's velocity is the speed of light.




And you sound like a cock as well to be blunt.
What are you explaining?
And who to?


..if it was to you then you'd know. Do you know what's funny as all h3ll ? Someone posted the actual reason our planet has a greenhouse effect. Everyone missed it except for me. This is because I've taken the science. With microwaves there's a reason why heat is trapped. This is because of application which gives a specific context in which Heat/ energy can be considered such as e = hf.

The energy E contained in a photon, which represents the smallest possible 'packet' of energy in an electromagnetic wave, is directly proportional to the frequency f according to the following equation:

E = hf

If E is given in joules and f is given in hertz (the unit measure of frequency), then:

E = (6.626176 x 10-34) f

and conversely:

f = E / (6.626176 x 10-34)


IMHO this describes heat. With our atmosphere IMHO we need to consider that energy changes because the field it's in changes.
And IMHO this might help to understand how we could warm our planet. Then again I've said we don't know enough to know how the composition of the atmosphere effects it's ability to retain heat.
Have A Nice Day. :-)


p.s., when food is cooked or hated, why does it take time to cool ? You know, like when you bite into a piece of pizza and burn the roof of your mouth. Why is the pizza hot if you're eating it ? Because it has slowed or trapped heat. This is what probably no one will get, background radiation can excite gas molecules just as microwaves excite water molecules. Context.
Edited on 26-05-2018 06:26
26-05-2018 07:07
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
You say IMHO yet you preach - you spit in Jesus face.
Sort your terms out and work on your consistency.
26-05-2018 07:47
James___
★★★★☆
(1697)
monckton wrote:
You say IMHO yet you preach - you spit in Jesus face.
Sort your terms out and work on your consistency.


:-)
26-05-2018 19:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9826)
James___ wrote:
Thought I'd leave you with this,

Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from one meter to one millimeter; with frequencies between 300 MHz (100 cm) and 300 GHz (0.1 cm).

Simply divide 293,000 by wave length to get frequency. And frequency is the number of cycles per second. Since microwaves heat food we know that heat has velocity. It's velocity is the speed of light.

Heat has no inherent velocity. While radiance is the speed of light, that is only one form of heat.

Heat is measured in watts. That is joules per second. If 200W of radiant (microwave in this case) heat is heating food by microwave, it is the same heat that is 200W of convective heat in a conventional oven. Convection does not move at the speed of light.

The food still gets cooked at the same rate. The food is still absorbing 200W of heat.

It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to 'slow' heat since heat has no inherent speed. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


The Parrot Killer
26-05-2018 20:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Thought I'd leave you with this,

Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from one meter to one millimeter; with frequencies between 300 MHz (100 cm) and 300 GHz (0.1 cm).

Simply divide 293,000 by wave length to get frequency. And frequency is the number of cycles per second. Since microwaves heat food we know that heat has velocity. It's velocity is the speed of light.

Heat has no inherent velocity. While radiance is the speed of light, that is only one form of heat.

Heat is measured in watts. That is joules per second. If 200W of radiant (microwave in this case) heat is heating food by microwave, it is the same heat that is 200W of convective heat in a conventional oven. Convection does not move at the speed of light.

The food still gets cooked at the same rate. The food is still absorbing 200W of heat.


OK.

It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to 'slow' heat since heat has no inherent speed. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


Wrong. It is obviously possible to trap heat in the form of a hot liquid in a thermos flask where the conduction is stopped by the vacume between the twin walls of the flask and the radiant heat is greatly reduced by the mirror finishes on the inside of these twin walls.

The amount of heat radiated by a body is dependant upon its' heat and its' albedo. The blacker the body the more it will radiate. This is why the Black body radiation thing exists. The absorption of radient heat is also a function of its' albedo. So 2 mirrored surfaces with a vacume between will, if they are perfect mirrors and a perfect vacume not pass any heat. they will never be perfect.

The top of the flask also conducts heat away.

The hot liquid core of the earth is hot because the heat is traped in the earth by the outerlayers not allowing it out very quickly and the fact that some heat is produced within the earth.
26-05-2018 20:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9826)
James___ wrote:
monckton wrote:
James___ wrote:
Thought I'd leave you with this,

Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from one meter to one millimeter; with frequencies between 300 MHz (100 cm) and 300 GHz (0.1 cm).

Simply divide 293,000 by wave length to get frequency. And frequency is the number of cycles per second. Since microwaves heat food we know that heat has velocity. It's velocity is the speed of light.




And you sound like a cock as well to be blunt.
What are you explaining?
And who to?


..if it was to you then you'd know. Do you know what's funny as all h3ll ? Someone posted the actual reason our planet has a greenhouse effect.

Everyone that belongs to the Church of Global Warming has posted a reason our planet has a 'greenhouse' effect...an effect that does not exist.
James___ wrote:
Everyone missed it except for me. This is because I've taken the science.

...and now for for more examples from you of bad science...
James___ wrote:
With microwaves there's a reason why heat is trapped.

Microwaves are a form of light. They are no by themselves heat. They only become heat if they are absorbed.
James___ wrote:
...deleted length explanation of the energy of a photon...

IMHO this describes heat.

Heat is not energy.
James___ wrote:
With our atmosphere IMHO we need to consider that energy changes because the field it's in changes.

Heat is not energy.
James___ wrote:
And IMHO this might help to understand how we could warm our planet.

The only way to warm the planet is to add energy. The only significant source of energy nearby is the Sun.
James___ wrote:
Then again I've said we don't know enough to know how the composition of the atmosphere effects it's ability to retain heat.

It is not possible to trap heat.
James___ wrote:
Have A Nice Day. :-)


p.s., when food is cooked or hated, why does it take time to cool ?

Because your food has mass. Heat takes time because of that mass.
James___ wrote:
You know, like when you bite into a piece of pizza and burn the roof of your mouth. Why is the pizza hot if you're eating it ? Because it has slowed or trapped heat.

No, because there is still a lot of thermal energy left. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy energy either. There is always heat. The food will eventually cool to room temperature.
James___ wrote:
This is what probably no one will get, background radiation can excite gas molecules just as microwaves excite water molecules. Context.

An excited molecule is not necessarily thermal energy. It may undergo a chemical reaction or it may just directly ionize.

Microwave ovens are a bit strange. The energy of a microwave does not heat the food directly. Instead it vibrates water molecules in the food at their resonant frequency, and only while the microwave is applied. This is not thermal energy. It is just resonance.

Microwaves cook food by friction. The remainder food 'sees' what effectively looks like thermal energy (but isn't) in the water molecules. That conducts into the remainder of the food.

When the microwave energy is shut off, the water in the food is the same thermal energy as the food around it, not at the resonant frequency of water anymore.

The plate does not contain water, so the plate the food is sitting on is only warmed by the food that's sitting on it (certain materials in some plates act like water in microwaves). It is also why the glass plate in the bottom of the oven and the sides remain cool.

Weather radar uses the same frequencies. When you beam this frequency into clouds, you get a resonance. Like shouting in an echo chamber, that resonance comes back like a weak 'transmitter' of the same frequency. This is what the radar set listens for. A great way to track the positions of clouds and how dense (how ready they are to precipitate) they are.

Aircraft often have this radar on board to monitor weather in front of them. Pilots are warned to turn this system off when the airplane is on the ground (there is often an interlock circuit wired into the squat switch of the landing gear for this as well) so they don't cook the ground crew.

I once knew a guy that worked on microwave telephone equipment. He would cook a hot dog for lunch by simply holding it up in front of the microwave dish on a stick for awhile. These towers use dish antennas and they are not quite the same frequency (just close enough if you hold the food close enough). The energy they emit is in a tight beam with very little side lobe energy.


The Parrot Killer
26-05-2018 20:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9826)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Thought I'd leave you with this,

Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths ranging from one meter to one millimeter; with frequencies between 300 MHz (100 cm) and 300 GHz (0.1 cm).

Simply divide 293,000 by wave length to get frequency. And frequency is the number of cycles per second. Since microwaves heat food we know that heat has velocity. It's velocity is the speed of light.

Heat has no inherent velocity. While radiance is the speed of light, that is only one form of heat.

Heat is measured in watts. That is joules per second. If 200W of radiant (microwave in this case) heat is heating food by microwave, it is the same heat that is 200W of convective heat in a conventional oven. Convection does not move at the speed of light.

The food still gets cooked at the same rate. The food is still absorbing 200W of heat.


OK.

It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to 'slow' heat since heat has no inherent speed. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


[color=navy]Wrong. It is obviously possible to trap heat in the form of a hot liquid in a thermos flask where the conduction is stopped by the vacume between the twin walls of the flask and the radiant heat is greatly reduced by the mirror finishes on the inside of these twin walls.

That is not trapping heat. That is reducing heat. Thermos flasks (proper noun) reduce heat. They are no different than any other insulation. They're just really good insulation.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The amount of heat radiated by a body is dependant upon its' heat and its' albedo.

Nope. The amount of heat radiated by a body is dependent only upon its heat.

Heat itself is the flow of energy. Albedo (the inverse of emissivity) describes how much radiance a body has given a certain amount of thermal energy (temperature). Radiance IS one form of heat. Thus, the radiant heat given off by a body is simply the radiant heat given off by a body. You are attempting to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law twice.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The absorption of radient heat is also a function of its' albedo.

This is also true. It is also something that tends to get missed by the Church of Global Warming a lot.
Tim the plumber wrote:
So 2 mirrored surfaces with a vacume between will, if they are perfect mirrors and a perfect vacume not pass any heat. they will never be perfect.

Assuming a perfect insulator (we both know no such thing exists), there will be no heat at all. No energy can enter or leave such a container. The temperature inside the container (when it was closed) will remain the same...forever. This is the only case where thermal energy is trapped.

However, we both know that no perfect insulation exists. There is always heat. Therefore, it is not possible to trap thermal energy either.


The Parrot Killer
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate Scientific Consensus:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N23612-11-2019 17:55
Consensus607-08-2019 05:33
There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.312-03-2019 13:23
Scientific Challenge8304-08-2017 02:03
Consensus of Scientists and Proof30705-05-2017 20:09
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact