1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

More Evidence Contradicting the Climate Change

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by palerider, Dec 22, 2014.

  1. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    146
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    You are still avoiding the question:
    Would the radiation between the stars drop to 5% of what it would be otherwise?
     
  2. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    153
    Sorry guy, it is you who is avoiding...not me. It is easy enough for you to answer your own question...

    [​IMG]

    Set the temperatures of the stars to whatever temperature you care to set them to...then watch what happens to P? (or are you, for all your bluster unable to actually do math at that level?) If You are, I will be happy to walk you through it. While you are at it....set T and Tc to the same number...what does P become? You know what anything multiplied by zero is...right?.... Come on...say it.....ZERO...that's what it becomes when T and Tc are the same...now, lets see you "interpret" the equation to say something that it doesn't....like net flow...blah..blah...blah...blah.... That equation...the physical law...describes a one way gross energy movement....if they wanted to describe a net bi directional movement of energy, the mathematical language certainly could have accommodated them...and yet, the law still, to this day, describes a one way gross movement of energy.

    And I asked you a question that the equations don't, and can't answer for me which you seem to be avoiding....I will ask again.

    Tell me, is it the emperor's waistcoat or his trousers that you think are most beautiful....or perhaps it is his accessories...hat?...shoes?...belt?...
     
  3. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    146
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Apparently it's not easy for you.

    You are quite wrong in your interpretation of the example. It is not zero

    The radiation from two stars at the same temperature is the same. Both stars are radiating at each other with an energy proportional to the fourth power of temperature.

    P = e x sigma x A x T^4

    You are applying the wrong equation. The physics is complex because both stars are emitting thermonuclear energy. External energy is involved.

    There is no way that the radiation can cancel out because both stars are continually pouring out radiant energy. That energy cannot disappear between them because of the immutable law of the conservation of energy.
     
  4. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    153
     
  5. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    146
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Hey buddy, it's not about me. It's about you.

    This is what all scientists, text books, journals, and lectures have said for the last 150 years:
    They all say that bodies at equilibrium radiate equal energy toward each other.

    http://www.tutorvista.com/content/p...t-and-thermodynamics/stefan-boltzmann-law.php
    Thus, the energy of the radiation absorbed per unit time is
    [​IMG] - - - - (1)
    Now, suppose the temperature of the body is changed to T but the room temperature remains To, the energy of the thermal radiation emitted by the body per unit time is
    [​IMG] - - - - (2)
    The energy absorbed per unit time by the body is
    [​IMG] - - - - (3)
    Thus, the net loss of thermal energy per unit time is
    [​IMG]

    They all say that bodies at equilibrium radiate equal energy toward each other.

    http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
    Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

    https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
    In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

    http://www.bing.com/knows/search?q=thermal equilibrium&mkt=zh-cn
    One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, no matter how far apart, or what partially obstructive, reflective, or refractive, obstacles lie in their path of radiative exchange, not moving relative to one another, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

    http://everything.explained.today/Kirchhoff's_law_of_thermal_radiation/
    Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

    http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
    Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heatso that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

    Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

    This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
    Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

    Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

    Scientists all see that your emperor that you worship is stark naked.
     
  6. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    153


    And yet, that is not what the physical law says and not what every observation and measurement ever made proves. You are operating from a position of belief...no more...no less.

    What I think is not a matter of belief...my position is born out by every observation and measurement ever made and is stated quite plainly in the form of uninterpreted physical law. Neither energy nor heat will spontaneously move from cool to warm...That fact is never going to change and no matter how much you rant and cry, the physical laws still support my position without requiring interpretation or modification of any kind.
     
  7. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    146
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Poor Palerider. You are all alone in an exciting world of science. Hundreds of thousands of scientists understand the laws and models of physics and the power of experimental prediction, and you disagree with them all. You are accusing all physicists of operating from belief when you are doing exactly the same in a distorted way.

    Do you think you are lying to yourself, or just to all other scientists? Your insane desire to deny AGW is driving you nuts. There are lots of ways to deny AGW without bastardizing yourself. I'm sure you can understand the laws the way scientists do, but your overstuffed ego makes you a lonely voice trying to lash out at the world of science.

    But more to the point. I'm curious just what part of the following derivation do you not understand?
    Equation 1?; 2?; 3?; or 4?

    Equation 1 is the SB law of 1879.
    Equation 2 is Kirchhoff's law of 1860.
    Equation 3 is the net energy loss.
    Equation 4 is algebra.
    All lectures, texts, and scientists for over 150 years involved in the subject agree with the following derivation.

    http://www.tutorvista.com/content/p...t-and-thermodynamics/stefan-boltzmann-law.php

    Suppose the temperature of a body is T.
    The energy emitted by the body per unit time is
    [​IMG] - - - - (1) . . . (the S-B law of 1879)

    The room temperature is To.
    The energy absorbed per unit time by the body is
    [​IMG] - - - - (2) . . . (Kirchhoff's law of 1860)

    Thus, the net loss or gain of thermal energy per unit time is
    [​IMG] - - - - (3)
    [​IMG]
     
  8. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    153
    And yet, the wording of the law, and the representative equations remain unchanged even till today. Why do you suppose that is? My bet would be lack of physical evidence....and belief in a thing...anything in the absence of physical evidence is just that....belief....in fact, here is the definition of belief..confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

    You can continue to bluster ad nauseum...page after page after page...what you can not do is provide the first bit of actual observed, measured evidence to support your belief. You may post a thousand references, ten thousand references...a million references and yet, the law remains unchanged...P still equals zero when T and Tc are set to the same number...and none of your references contains even the smallest observed, measured evidence that either energy or heat will move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer one...You are railing at me because I don't accept your faith and you are frustrated because you know that you will never be able to provide the one thing that will convince me...that being, observed, measured proof. You don't have it and none of your references has it, nor will you ever. Simple as that....and all the while, the AGW hypothesis which is founded and based entirely on what you believe continues to fail spectacularly.
     
  9. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    146
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Yet you still don't understand them.
    Of course they do. The exchanged radiation are both equal, and the two energy densities cancel out to zero.

    That's too funny. You disagree with the physics of radiation exchange, but you don't know why. Which equation of the above derivation do you think is wrong? 1? 2? 3? 4? You can't answer that can you.

    You have a religious faith that quantum mechanics is wrong. You natter away, picking scientific words and putting them into sentences that totally disagree with the laws of nature. It is impossible to prove a single bit of your faith. You don't even have a model that illustrates your misunderstandings. You don't have a shred of evidence that might undermine radiation exchange. Go ahead and believe the radiation between two light bulbs cancel leave a black streak between them. It's your faith.
     
  10. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    153
    Of course I do...Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

    That is an exceptionally unambiguous statement...it is clear and concise and easily understood....there is no room within that statement for any sort of interpretation whatsoever.

    The same can be said for this.....[​IMG] ...there is no room for interpretation there...it states as clearly as possible that the amount of energy radiating from a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings is determined by its emissivity, times the SB constant, times the area of the radiator times the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings to the 4th power....set T and Tc to zero and P becomes zero...no room for interpretation...no room for misunderstanding...no room for anything but what it says...

    That is an interpretation and not at all what either the law or the equations say...the law and the equations explicitly describe a one way gross energy flow...your interpretation can not be described by either the law or its equations as they do not describe net two way flows.

    Of course I know why...I agree with the physical laws and what they say...I don't feel the need to interpret them, distort them, or otherwise attempt to claim that they say something that they don't in an effort to torture them into alignment with what I believe.

    Sorry guy, lying is not a valid argument...quantum mechanics runs into a contradiction explaining the electron cloud of the first element on the periodic table..the most abundant element in the universe...one does not need any faith at all to grasp that QM has problems....On the other hand, a great deal of faith is required to believe QM is a true and accurate representation of what is happening at the microscopic level.

    Sorry, but your interpretations of the laws of nature don't matter...till you can make statements that agree with the literal statements of physical laws you are doomed to failure. My statements are in agreement with the statements of the physical laws...

    Again, pure bald faced lies....every observation and measurement ever made confirms my position....your's on the other hand is based on unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.

    I have no misunderstandings....As I showed above, the statements of the laws are clear and unambiguous, and leave no room for interpretation....you go afoul of them with every statement you make.

    Of course I don't...I accept the laws as they are stated...you, on the other hand are making claims that are not supported by the statements of the physical laws or they associated equations...You make up ridiculous mental experiments and spout your imagination as if it were fact...you are reduced to this behavior because you can't provide a shred of actual observed evidence to support your belief....and in typical liberal/fascist fashion, you accuse me of the very thing you are guilty of doing...which is not surprising in the least.
     
  11. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    146
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Wrong. Radiation goes everywhere. You are reciting refrigeration thermodynamics only; not radiation thermodynamics.
    So do you or do you not agree with all these clear and unambiguous statements?

    Suppose the temperature of a body is T.
    The energy emitted by the body per unit time is
    [​IMG] - - - - (1) . . . (the S-B law of 1879)

    The room temperature is To.
    The energy absorbed per unit time by the body is
    [​IMG] - - - - (2) . . . (Kirchhoff's law of 1860)

    Thus, the net loss or gain of thermal energy per unit time is
    [​IMG] - - - - (3)
    [​IMG]
    So, you have a religious faith that quantum mechanics is wrong.
    So you don't believe in mathematical models, but you believe in the derived mathematical model of Stefan. Your pot calls the kettle black.
    So you do accept Stefan's law and Kirchhoff's law.
     
  12. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    153
    Reading for comprehension problem? Clearly you can't even get through a straight forward statement without misinterpreting...as if there were special refrigerator thermodynamics in the first place...the statement clearly says...

    It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

    Then it goes on to say that this state of affairs precludes a perfect refrigerator...the fact that heat and energy will not flow spontaneously from cool to warm is why you can't have a perfect refrigerator...it is not positing some special category of physics for refrigerators...you are falling quickly on the respectometer...decending to the level of abject bullshitter very quickly.

    There is no spontaneous net energy transfer...all spontaneous energy transfer is a gross one way proposition from warm to cool. None of your equations describe net energy movement...they all describe one way gross movement.

    One more deliberate lie and you go on ignore...I said that any theory which runs into contradiction with itself before it even gets past the first element in the periodic table is not to be taken on faith....it is chock full of problems and contradictions....

    mathematical models are real...sure, but I don't take on faith that their output is correct, especially when that output can never, and has never been observed, measured, or tested..belief like that is faith, not knowledge.

    Of course...it is you who is trying to interpret it into something that it isn't. Stefan's law says states that the total amount of heat energy radiated per second per unit area of a perfect black body is directly proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature...and that is for a perfect black body radiating into an empty vacuum...add anything to that vacuum and then whatever you added begins to affect the amount of energy radiated...

    insofar as it relates to perfect black bodies in perfect equilibrium...again, an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model describing a thing which doesn't exist, nor has ever existed in the known universe.

    Your perfectly idiotic mind experiments were far more entertaining than this line of calf eyed mooing that you are currently pursuing...why not go back to experiments which were all work from start to finish when you claimed that no work was being done?
     
  13. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    146
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Nope that came from Clausius's idea on refrigerators not radiation which came later. I read and comprehended Clausius quite well. You didn't comprehend.
    Nope. Equation 1 is a body's output. Equation 2 is the surround's input. The subtraction is the net.
    The hydrogen atom is quite well understood and verified. Yep, you have a religious faith that quantum mechanics is wrong.
    As I said, you don't believe in mathematical models.
    Nope, whatever is added radiates back and drops the net energy flow.
    So you believe Stefan's law but not Kirchhoff's law. Cherry picking well known physics for your AGW stance I see.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
  14. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    153
    So you can't read...and understand even when it is explained to you....lets review the source of your confusion again...

    Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator.

    First, you disagree with the statement that heat will not flow from a colder body to a warmer body without work being done to make the transfer happen...and you disagree with the statement that energy won't spontaneously flow from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object....you disagree with the physical law based on unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models...then the last sentence says simply...."this precludes a perfect refrigerator"....this is a straight forward easy to understand statement... Perhaps it is the word preclude that is throwing you off...preclude means to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible. So the sentence at the end means that because of the two statements of fact that precede (that means come before) you know, the ones about heat not flowing from a colder body to a warmer body without doing work to make it happen....and the one about energy not flowing spontaneously (that means on its own) from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object (that means from cool to warm)....you can not have a perfect refrigerator....

    It doesn't mean that the physics of refrigerators are somehow different from any other physics...there is not a special refrigerator sub set of physical laws because energy transfer is somehow different for refrigerators....the statement goes on to say that because neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from cool to warm, you also can't have perfect air conditioners or heat pumps......I might add that you also can't have perpetual motion machines...

    Fiction and misunderstanding on your part...refer to the second law of thermodynamics...

    And yet, QM runs into contradictions right there at the electron cloud of the hydrogen atom... Since you apparently can't read and understand simple sentences I suppose it its pointless to provide this, but here is an explanation as to how QM runs into contradictions beginning with the hydrogen atom...

    I believe mathematical models whose output can be observed, tested, and measured...

    False as explicitly stated by the physical laws and their associated equations....sorry you can't make sense of them.

    Your last lie...you are on ignore...
     
  15. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    146
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    You got this from the hyperphysics site. They were totally focused on refrigerator physics! In radiation physics photon energy can flow either way between hot and cold objects. However in radiation physics heat can only flow from hot to cold. That is what the second law says.

    That is a total lie on your part. I have always said that "heat flow" is the only wording of the second law that physicists accept when it comes to all applications of thermodynamics.

    Yes, but only in radiation thermodynamics as I said many times.
    That is precisely why physics involves mathematical models. You can never observe a single photon. You can infer them only because the mathematical model of photons predicts every test made. You can infer them from electronic blips from a detector. Your “unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models “ argument is devoid of relevance. There are some things in physics that cannot be intuitively understood by man yet. But the mathematics is the best and only method for formulating physics.
    Of course.
    You are wrong there. Refrigerator physics involves electric motors, pumps, and fluids. That does not require any radiation physics. Radiation physics does not involve any mechanical work when it comes to objects in space in equilibrium.

    This is the last paragraph from a blog that you quoted:
    In atomic physics, Hund's rules was formulated around 1927.
    Madelung's rule came in 1924,

    That was 90 years ago!!! Of course it was ad hoc back then. Again you are dwelling in old physics that is well understood today. The periodic table has been totally explained by detailed calculations that take account of relativistic effects.
    That's a cowards way out.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice