A Call To Repeal The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics
Physicists have made the law sound complicated by talking of entropy in order to try to impress and confuse the average person but it doesn’t change the basic meaning of the law.
The law may sound right, like many generalities, but the problem with it is that it is not based in reality.
A law of physics are never broken, there no exceptions or averages.
They are true in every situation and in every case. Physics is supposed to be describing reality and when one of the basic tenets of physics is wrong and used to develop new theories, the science becomes further and further divorced from reality.
Heat is a combination of mass and energy (kinetic energy) and is transferred to other objects by radiation and elastic collisions. It is only energy being transferred, not mass. Energy may radiate in all directions from an object but it does not flow in all directions, which entropy would have you believe.
Energy always seeks equilibrium flowing from higher level to lower level so there is order to the movements within the systems in the universe.
When objects collide it is energy that is transferred from one object to another object. The object with the greater energy/velocity per unit mass will add energy to the object with less energy per unit mass, regardless of how much kinetic energy (a product of energy and mass) that object contains.
It is not how much energy the mass has but the level of that energy. If you have a fire and add more wood the amount of energy given off will increase even though the level of energy (temperature) remains the same.
Acetylene can melt steel because the triple bond between carbon atoms contains a higher level of energy than the single bond between carbon atoms in propane. No matter how much propane you use you will not be able to melt steel.
Collisions or convection is described by the law of conservation of momentum (M1v1 + M2v2 = M1v3 + M2v4) and is experimentally verified. When a large mass with greater velocity collides with a small mass the velocity of the small mass will increase but never exceed the velocity of the large mass no matter how much greater the mass is and the amount of energy it contains.
After the collision the total kinetic energy of the two objects will remain the same, but the distribution of that energy between the objects changes. A small car running into the back of a large slower truck will cause the truck’s velocity to increase and the car’s velocity to decrease.
In collisions where no energy is absorbed as internal energy by the object, as happens between similar gas molecules in the atmosphere, the velocity/energy of the two objects will be equal.
All objects with energy will radiate energy. The strength of that energy will decrease with distance from the object and since energy only flow from higher to lower, when the energy emitted by an object meets equal energy being radiated from another object, it acts as a barrier preventing the flow of energy to the object. No energy can be transferred
This addition of energy, if it is not strong enough to break the bonds of the other object, will then increase the strength of energy being radiated by that object and a new barrier or equilibrium point will be reached where the object no longer gains radiated energy from that source.
The equilibrium point between the sun’s solar energy and the Earth’s geothermal energyis within the crust of the Earth so the sunlit side gains energy while the unlit side loses
energy. On Venus, which is wholly within the sun’s energy field, there is little difference in temperature between day and night.
Even though an object is “hotter”, because its energy is being radiated in all directions and there is distance separating the two objects, it prevents the level of energy of the two objects from ever becoming equal.
Another problem with the transfer of energy between objects by radiation, which prevents the energy of the objects from becoming equal, is that what wavelength of energy an object absorbs and radiates is determined by the atoms, bonds, and structure of that object.
Glass is transparent to the visible wavelengths of light but blocks ultraviolet radiation. This means that an object with a different composition or structure would never be able to absorb all the energy coming from a different object, preventing them from having equal levels of energy.
Despite the way energy is transferred by radiation making it impossible for equalization of energy between the objects to occur, if you were to put a cold piece of glass and a warmer object radiating visible light in perfectly insulated container with a total vacuum, the temperature of the two objects would become equal.
This is because objects do not transfer energy to other objects but to the energy field they are in.
Planck concluded that the specific wavelengths of energy being emitted and absorbed by objects were a property of the energy, but it is a function of the mass emitting it. This gave us the nonsensical world of quantum physics, creating different laws of physics for subatomic reality.
The insanity of every answer being a correct answer and that reality was determined by the observer should have been obvious to anyone with any sense. Radiated energy penetrates atoms all the way to the nucleus.
It is attracted to positive matter (creating the strong compressing nuclear force) and repels negative matter, electrons. These electrons, also being attracted to the positive charge of the nucleus, form orbits around the nucleus, kept away by the energy around the nucleus thus creating atoms.
It is the repelling force between these orbiting electrons on the energy field around the nucleus that cause the flow of the radiated attractive energy force from the nucleus to convert from gravity into the directional attractive force of magnetism.
The reason a neutron, not in the nucleus of an atom, will decay within ten minutes, even though there is a strong electrical force holding the neutron together, is because the energy force dislodges the exposed electron.
An opposite example is the alpha particle, which is composed of four protons and two electrons. It is extremely stable despite containing a strong repelling electric force. The reason for this unexpected stability is that the electrons within the particle are shielded from the energy force by the protons.
Ever wonder how it could be that when a proton and electron combine to form a neutron it releases energy and when that neutron decays into a proton and an electron it again releases energy?
When an atom gains more energy it forces the electrons to move into larger orbits. When the atom then loses that energy, the electrons drop back into a closer orbit around the nucleus. This change of energy creates a disturbance in the radiated energy field resulting in an electromagnetic wave, light.
Because the number and energy of the orbiting electrons is unique to every element, when losing energy by radiation, each element produces a unique pattern of light waves or spectrum.
As the light emitted by the atom is transmitted through the energy field, its speed changes as the strength of the energy field changes. When the light moves away from the source,
in a decreasing field, it will cause the speed of the disturbance to slow producing longer wavelengths (red shift). When traveling in the increasing strength of an energy field, radiated from another object, the speed of the light will increase, causing a blue shift.
Light traveling through multiple energy fields will cause a blurring of the spectral lines as both red and blue shifts happen. A red shift indicates that the light has traveled further through a decreasing energy field than through an increasing energy field. Blurring of spectral lines indicates that the light has traveled through multiple fields for different distances.
Planck’s law, that the energy of light is a function of its frequency times a constant, is wrong. The energy of light from the sun reaching Neptune is a tenth of a percent of the energy of the light reaching the Earth and yet there is no detectable red shift.
It is the amplitude of the disturbance that determines the amount of energy it contains.
Energy, v^2, creates motion. When something gains or loses energy (acceleration/deceleration) the velocity changes. When something is in equilibrium with an energy field, its velocity is constant. The assertion that an object will continue to travel in a straight line and at a constant velocity unless a force acts upon it is false.
Nothing, not even light, travels in a straight line because the strength of the radiated fields change and since its velocity depends on the energy creating its motion, it can never be constant.
An object will maintain its energy creating a circular path and constant speed in an energy field unless it loses or gains energy, which will cause it to move into and equalize with an energy field with a different strength.
A planet’s velocity changes as the distance and strength of the energy field emitted by the sun changes (Keppler’s law). The greater the distance from the sun, the weaker the energy field emitted by the sun and the slower the velocity of the planet. The mass of the orbiting object is irrelevant to its velocity because it is energy, not mass, that creates motion.
Mass or matter produces inertia or a resistance to motion. It is the energy associated and radiated by an object blocking the flow of energy that gives an object an appearance of mass. We picture objects as being made up of particles but it is not particles that interact with other objects.
It is the fields of the object, electric coming from matter and gravity/magnetic coming from energy, which interact to create reality.
Matter has nothing to do with the speed of light, it is the energy associated with the matter that determines the speed of the disturbance. Matter, by attracting energy, acts as a new source for an energy field and produces the electric field the electromagnetic field the wave travels in. Both the electric and energy fields decrease as the distance from the matter increases but the two forces act oppositely.
When two similar magnetic poles get closer the strength and size of the radiated magnetic field decreases but when two similar charges get closer, the strength and size of the radiated electric field increases.
If an electron and proton move closer together the strength and size of the positive and negative electric fields decreases and they create a neutron while when opposite magnetic poles get closer it creates a larger stronger magnetic field, producing a bigger magnet.
The speed of light is not constant in a vacuum or at a maximum but actually has a greater velocity when in the denser fields close to matter. If the speed of light was constant in a vacuum it would mean that the energy of the light, v^2, would not decrease with distance as it traveled through space.
The energy of the light coming from distant stars would be the same as energy of light coming from the sun.
Light is not a collection of a bundle of photons but a wave traveling through the medium of the electric and energy fields and it is energy that determines the amplitude of that wave. As energy decreases due to increased distance or absorption by matter, the amplitude decreases.
This is why it is the longer infrared and radio waves that travel the furthest distance through space, even though physicists will tell you they have the least energy. They are what remain of the disturbance (amplitude) as it spreads over a greater area and the shorter wavelengths disappear.
The energy is transferred to matter by the electrical field from matter. Because of the different charges across the bonds (negative electrons, positive nucleus) a change in the amplitude of a wave will affect strength of the electric field around these bonds.
When the amplitude is greater than the vibration or flexing of the atoms forming the bond, then energy will be added to the matter. If the flexing of the atoms is greater than the amplitude of the disturbance, energy will be added to the energy field and when flexing and amplitude are equal there will be no transfer of energy.
When the energy is too strong, or has too great of an amplitude, a disturbance will cause bonds to break.
The composition of the atmosphere consists almost entirely of oxygen and nitrogen atoms. The structure that these atoms form depends on the strength of the energy coming from the sun. Near the top, where the energy is greatest, the oxygen is in the form of oxygen atoms. Because the triple bond of nitrogen is too strong to be broken and its mass
being greater its concentration in the atmosphere has declined at these altitudes.
With descent in the atmosphere the elements are found as nitrogen-oxygen molecules, where the oxygen molecule has been split (495,000 joules/mole) while the nitrogen molecules triple bond is too strong (950,000 joules/mole/ and only partially splits allowing it to combine with the oxygen atom.
With further decline in altitude and the energy field from the sun come the ozone, nitrogen, and oxygen molecules which are now more stable and able to lose energy because of the declining energy of the sun’s energy field.
Today’s physics has nothing to do with reality (why 95 percent of the universe is claimed to be undetectable) because it has accepted bad assumptions and created laws that do not match reality. Light does not travel in a straight line nor does it have a constant velocity. Energy and matter are not different versions of the same thing.
They are the two distinct building blocks creating the universe and these two components have two forces that act in opposite fashion. The universe is a result of the force of energy being attracted to positive matter and being stronger than the force of matter allowing it to split basic matter, the neutron, into positive and negative fields which we label as particles, protons and electrons creating atoms that contain both matter and energy.
It is time to have physics again be based in reality not assumptions, laws, and theories that are contradicted by evidence and stop having physicists creating things to act as evidence trying to make reality conform to their theories.
Please note: PSI does not necessarily endorse the views of each and every article we publish. Our intention is to encourage open, honest, scientific debate.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
MattH
| #
What the fark are the editors up to. Wikipedia is full of shisce on certain topics, now this.
Reply
MattH
| #
This being published in PSI is a denigration of the memory of Dr. Tomothy Ball.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Tim Ball sacrificed a lot because he believed the accepted science was false. He knew the evidence did not support the theory and was willing to be vilified to correct the science. When he asked for the evidence to support the theory they would/could not produce it.
I would be glad to see any evidence that contradicts what I say. When you are out fishing your boat has far more mass and kinetic energy than the minuscule mass of the air molecules in the atmosphere, yet when the wind blows and those gas molecules gain energy they will greatly effect the speed and direction of your boat. Shouldn’t your boat, with its greater kinetic energy be transferring energy to the gas molecules?
The 2nd LOT is a foundation of modern physics and when the foundation of something is bad everything else is compromised.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Tim Ball sacrificed a lot because he believed the accepted science was false. He knew the evidence did not support the theory and was willing to be vilified to correct the science. ”
Belief over-rides and corrects science. How about that!
I’ll consult Jerry.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Dan Shechtman PhD.
“He was awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of quasicrystals, making him one of six Israelis who have won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.”
“The head of Shechtman’s research group told him to “go back and read the textbook” and a couple of days later “asked him to leave for ‘bringing disgrace’ on the team”
While one can claim it’s an exception, it is still completely valid. Maybe also for Herb?
Reply
Howdy
| #
Forgot to credit the source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Shechtman
MattH
| #
Belief systems and analysis are incompatible bedfellows.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Yet it has been shown to work, Matt. Belief lead to analysis. The inquisitive mind that has a theory, still a belief, that showed the true science by method.
Looking at it another way, one belief over-rode other beliefs because they were simply doubters who had no idea or inclination. Not actual scientists.
So much for scientific thought when a handbook is the established belief system. Simply religious indoctrination from the bottom up.
Reply
VOWG
| #
Well, that was enlightening and changes nothing.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Herb,
Well heat generally does flow from a hot object to a cold object. Recently the “record warm” Atlantic Ocean flowed to the Arctic and the Arctic replied by sending a polar vortex that provided free air conditioning to Chicago, Iowa etc and re-establishing the Arctic polar ice cap. On a macro scale. You provide some sub-atomic examples of how the second law might be violated here and there. In my experience going against my betters – including the geniuses of the past – seldom leads to good. Carnot, Clausius, Kelvin are instantly recognized as having – pound for pound – more brains than the rest of us, while Vogel and Rose – perhaps injustly – remain on the sidelines. I’m with VOWG: when dealing with Polar Vortices I’ll go with the “hot flows to cold and cold to hot”, because it explains “stuff”.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
I vote for Herb .
If he is wrong, show him why he is wrong.
I await a potential debunking, if there is one.
Reply
D. Boss
| #
My eyes glazed over and I stopped reading at this point in the above nonsense diatribe:
“Acetylene can melt steel because the triple bond between carbon atoms contains a higher level of energy than the single bond between carbon atoms in propane. No matter how much propane you use you will not be able to melt steel.”
Neither acetylene nor propane by itself can melt steel! The fuel gas needs added oxygen at a precise ratio to achieve a flame temperature sufficient to melt steel. But more to the point, propane is used ubiquitously to melt and cut steel, especially in demolition exercises as it is considerably cheaper and safer to use than acetylene. (and yes it’s flame mixed with pure oxygen is somewhat cooler than that of oxy-acetylene but still hot enough to melt steel)
Here is proof positive this author does not know what he is talking about in the following video using propane to melt and cut steel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q4ZZHBfLDY (Cutting With Propane)
Now use of a cutting torch involves two aspects: 1) the fuel gas plus low volume oxygen flame must take the steel to melting temperature, then 2) the high volume oxygen lance of the torch is engaged and this extra oxygen jet then actually “burns” the steel and blows away a channel of the burning, molten steel.
Needless to say, but if the fuel gas/oxygen cannot get the steel to a molten state, the extra oxygen of the lance will do nothing and propane can and does melt steel when you add the correct mixture of pure oxygen to the flame.
Reply
Byron
| #
D.Boss
This article is not an IKEA instructions manual.
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb:
The second law of thermodynamics states that heat will flow from a hotter object to a cooler object
JMcG:
It doesn’t state this and you are otherwise confused. The predominant (net) flow of energy will be from hotter objects to cooler objects. But the actual flow will be from all objects to all other objects.
Herb:
Physicists have made the law sound complicated by talking of entropy in order to try to impress and confuse the average person but it doesn’t change the basic meaning of the law.
JMcG:
There is nothing confusing about entropy unless you misinterpret it. And it seems you have.
Herb:
The law may sound right, like many generalities, but the problem with it is that it is not based in reality.
JMcG:
The law is perfectly realistic. The reality is that all objects radiate in all directions at all times. The net (predominant) flow will be from hotter objects to cooler objects. Why so many people find this confusing is a mystery to me.
Most people are predisposed to misinterpret science. There is nothing that can be done for them.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
“Heat” does not flow, energy does. Heat is a combination of matter and energy and only energy is radiated. It always flows from higher to lower (which is why entropy is wrong) and when it meets equal energy coming from another source, it ceases to flow. You are confusing energy and light. Light is a disturbance in the energy field radiated from matter. It is like the flow of AC versus DC. When the disturbance meets a field radiated from another object the equilibrium point between the two fields changes and the disturbance is transmitted to the other field. There is no energy being transferred to the other object.
Herb
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Heat is a combination of matter and energy and only energy is radiated.”
FFS, Herb, if you’re not even cognizant of the fact that ‘heat’ is defined as a flux of energy, then you have no business acting as though you know what you’re talking about by writing articles.
Light is, by definition, ‘heat’ because photons have no rest frame and they are nothing but energy… energy in motion, the definition of ‘heat’. It matters not their wavelength. Stop using layperson definitions in what you want people to believe are scientific articles and discussions.
Again, buckle down, crack a book, study.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Jame McGinn agreed that “heat flow” should be ‘net heat flow’. And Herb’s immediate response is ““Heat” does not flow, energy does.” Thus contradicting his opening statement. Need anything more need to be stated?
Have a good day
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
”Energy” that is the word that causes all the confusion, and purposely so.
If one environ or object is at steady temp of 30 c and another object or environ is at 10c then the only energy being put to work from either is the energy being emitted by the one whose energy is of a higher frequency, in the this case the frequencies that make up the band between 10c and 30c,
The energy frequencies that both environs are all ready saturated with upto 10c are being emitted by both objects/environs but are meaningless as they do not get absorbed or used to create any work, they are the result of work already created in both objects or environs and are simply scattered/ or pass straight through the opposite object or environ effectively, so all this ”net” stuff is just confusing horse shit and again purposefully so.
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
GA:
The energy frequencies that both environs are all ready saturated with upto 10c are being emitted by both objects/environs but are meaningless as they do not get absorbed or used to create any work,
JMcG:
You are mistaken. It’s not meaningless, it does get absorbed and/or used to create work. You have misinterpreted the 2nd law. Stop listening to people on the internet who make dumbass statements that mischaracterize the 2nd law, the classic example being this absurd claim that energy only moves from hot to cold. The LOT’s have to do with net exchange.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
I didn’t say all energy only moves from hot to cold James as i agree with what you stated above, where you said the the net flow is heat.
What i said was the energy of insufficient frequency to act as heat is either scattered or passes straight through effectively, the lower bands of energy frequencies do ”effectively pass straight through, yes depending on the matter some is absorbed and then instantly emitted again in any direction, that is ”effectively passing straight through, it does not increase the frequency of the resident energy in the environ or object the flux of photons has entered…. its just sophistry to mix it all in and then call the frequencies that are transformed into work a ”net” flow of heat, if the frequency of the energy in the photons cannot increase temerature then the energy is not acting as heat.
Reply
GaryAshe
| #
IF the incoming flux of photons cannot Increase the frequency of the resident energy and raise the temperature it is not acting as heat i mean in that last sentence, so to include that as heat when it has not physical effect and call the photons of a higher frequency that do increase the resident energies frequency and physical state of temperature a net is pure sophistry.
Reply
Jerry
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I have only read the first sentence of Herb’s article. “The second law of thermodynamics states that heat will flow from a hotter object to a cooler object.” For it is wrong! The correct statement is “The second law of thermodynamics states that NET heat will flow from a hotter object to a cooler object.”
Have a good day
Reply
olav ankjær
| #
Conclusion:
What is light: “light is like all other heat radiation, electromagnetic radiation”
But could this be the correct description? Radiation can only be described as the transfer of heat if/when the energy in the radiation is strong enough to increase the energy and thus the heat in the object it hits.
Reply
olav ankjær
| #
To understand me better.
Conclusion:
Radiation that describes an object’s temperature is heat radiation and all heat radiation is electromagnetic radiation.
Radiation will always be or be referred to as a heat flow, but be a NET HEATFLOW if the radiation hits something that gets an increased temperature.
Isn’t this really an abuse of the word heat?
But shouldn’t one just call this radiation even if something is heated.
Sorry for my somewhat limited English.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Olav,
While I did not refer to light, all light is not necessarily thermal radiation that is being emitted from the surface of condensed matter (solid or liquid) due to its temperature. Now that I wrote this I see I am contradicting my reasoning that gaseous atoms and molecules do not emit radiation because they have no surface. However, for a moment I forgot that gravity due to the great mass of a star compresses its atoms and small molecules to a liquid-like surface at some defined distance from the star’s center of mass. Hence we see the well defined disk (2-d) of the nearly spherical (3-d) sun.
Have a good day
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“A law of physics are never broken, there no exceptions or averages.”
There has never been an empirically-observed macroscopic violation of 2LoT, and 2LoT is even more rigorously-observed at the quantum level, with a whole family of sub-set conditions which must be met for a change of state to take place:
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3275
Herb Rose is wrong, and has been wrong about a lot of things. Why he’s even allowed to continue publishing his tripe on this site is beyond me, it makes the climate-skeptical side look foolish to have people promulgating unphysicalities. But I will note that the climate alarmists would love to repeal 2LoT, given that their take on the climate is predicated upon a violation of that fundamental physical law… so I’ll yet again ask the question which Herb Rose has as yet not answered: “Whose side are you on?”
And I’ll just leave these here so those who wish to know how reality actually works can see for themselves:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
https://principia-scientific.com/separating-fact-from-fiction/#comment-98166
https://principia-scientific.com/separating-fact-from-fiction/#comment-98167
https://principia-scientific.com/separating-fact-from-fiction/#comment-98198
https://principia-scientific.com/the-fallacy-of-bell-curves/#comment-98554
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“When objects collide it is energy that is transferred from one object to another object. The object with the greater energy/velocity per unit mass will add energy to the object with less energy per unit mass, regardless of how much kinetic energy (a product of energy and mass) that object contains.”
Proven wrong here:
https://i.imgur.com/rQOAGEN.png
You will note that the faster object did not “add velocity” to the slower object, and in fact, the slower object “added velocity” to the slower object. Obviously if what Herb Rose claims were true, it would be true in all circumstances.
Now, given that what Herb Rose claims was proven true long before his ‘article’ above was even a glint in his eye, one must ask: “Why does Herb Rose continue promulgating unphysicalities? Is he a ‘Judas goat’ with the intent of leading climate skeptics astray or damaging their image by publishing foolishness? Why is he so insistent upon continuing to publish that foolishness even after it is proven wrong?”
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Ah, I see… Herb Rose has changed what he claims from:
https://principia-scientific.com/the-fallacy-of-bell-curves/#comment-98540
“the object with the greater velocity adds velocity to the object with less velocity regardless of mass”
… to:
“The object with the greater energy/velocity per unit mass will add energy to the object with less energy per unit mass, regardless of how much kinetic energy (a product of energy and mass) that object contains.”
… all while continuing to deny that that “energy per unit mass” he’s talking about is kinetic energy. For two objects of the same mass, the object with higher kinetic energy will have higher energy/velocity per unit mass when only translational mode energy is considered.
Herb Rose has a fundamental disconnect about what kinetic energy and energy density are.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
“Now, given that what Herb Rose claims was proven true”
— should be —
“Now, given that what Herb Rose claims was proven untrue”
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
“and in fact, the slower object “added velocity” to the slower object”
— should be —
“and in fact, the slower object “added velocity” to the faster object”
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Physicists have made the law sound complicated by talking of entropy in order to try to impress and confuse the average person but it doesn’t change the basic meaning of the law.”
Conspiracy ideation of the lowest order.
2LoT is intricately tied to entropy, to such an extent that it’s mathematically described (ΔS = ΔQ / T; T = 4^√(e/a)), reflects reality and is predictive. Physicists didn’t just wake up on day and think, “Hmmmm… how can I impress and confuse the average person today?”.
If anyone takes any of what Herb Rose writes as truth, you’re a fool.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“The second law of thermodynamics states that heat will flow from a hotter object to a cooler object”
Strange that you wouldn’t just quote 2LoT, Herb… it’s not as simplified as you make it.
2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense (remember that Clausius laid the foundation for 2LoT from 1850… he’s the ‘father’ of 2LoT):
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
That “some other change” is external energy doing work to push the system energy up an energy density gradient.
So how any of the kooks can claim energy can flow from cooler to warmer, without external energy doing work to pump that energy up the energy density gradient can only be chalked up to the fact that you don’t really understand what you’re talking about.
That is, after all, how a refrigerator or AC units works… it pumps the energy from one space and exhausts it to another space, it pumps that system energy up the energy density gradient by using external energy to do work upon that system energy.
All work requires an energy input. All action requires an impetus… nothing ‘flows’ on its own, it is pushed or pulled. Energy does not spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient (ie: from cooler to warmer).
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Now, knowing that ‘heat’ is scientifically defined as “an energy flux”, we can then gain insight into 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
“A flow of energy can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
— or equivalently —
“A flow of energy can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without external energy doing work upon that system energy to push it up the energy density gradient.”
Now, some kooks claim that a photon emitted at a higher frequency by a cooler object will somehow find its way to a warmer object and be absorbed by an unexcited quantum state… yeah, no.
A warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object.
https://i.imgur.com/wb9KwS0.png
Now, some kooks will claim, “Oh, ‘heat’ is defined as a flux of energy only for net energy flow!”… yeah, no.
Energy is energy, it obeys the same laws and exhibits the same behavior no matter what… it’s not as if energy from ‘warmer to cooler’ obeys one set of rules whereas energy from ‘cooler to warmer’ obeys a different set of rules… but that’s what the kooks want you to believe.
To come to grips with the reality of how energy flows, one can think of it much like water… water only ever spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill), just as energy only ever spontaneously flows down an energy density gradient… energy density is pressure (radiation pressure) and an energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
https://principia-scientific.com/separating-fact-from-fiction/#comment-98198
So to claim that energy can spontaneously flow ‘cooler to warmer’ is directly analogous to claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill. Of course, sane folks know that water has to be pumped uphill (ie: up a pressure gradient), just as energy from a cooler object has to be pumped (via external energy) up an energy density gradient.
Using dimensional analysis:
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Note that pressure and energy density have the same units, and pressure gradient and energy density gradient have the same units… because energy density is pressure (radiation pressure), and an energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
Learn more here:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
https://principia-scientific.com/separating-fact-from-fiction/#comment-98166
https://principia-scientific.com/separating-fact-from-fiction/#comment-98167
https://principia-scientific.com/the-fallacy-of-bell-curves/#comment-98554
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Now, knowing that ‘heat’ is scientifically defined as “an energy flux”, we can then gain insight into 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
It would appear that Clausius is the source of the confusion. Not being a native english speaker, Clausius should have said, “increase in temperature,” in a warmer object cannot occur from it being in proximity of a cooler object.
Or, possibly, Clausius was just confused.
It makes no difference what one person says. It’s just moronic to suggest that the photons from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object. If that were true insulation could not work as we know it does.
James McGinn / Genius
January 2924
https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/QrV0kWWDtGb
“A flow of energy can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
— or equivalently —
“A flow of energy can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without external energy doing work upon that system energy to push it up the energy density gradient.”
Now, some kooks claim that a photon emitted at a higher frequency by a cooler object will somehow find its way to a warmer object and be absorbed by an unexcited quantum state… yeah, no.
A warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object.
https://i.imgur.com/wb9KwS0.png
Now, some kooks will claim, “Oh, ‘heat’ is defined as a flux of energy only for net energy flow!”… yeah, no.
Energy is energy, it obeys the same laws and exhibits the same behavior no matter what… it’s not as if energy from ‘warmer to cooler’ obeys one set of rules whereas energy from ‘cooler to warmer’ obeys a different set of rules… but that’s what the kooks want you to believe.
To come to grips with the reality of how energy flows, one can think of it much like water… water only ever spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill), just as energy only ever spontaneously flows down an energy density gradient… energy density is pressure (radiation pressure) and an energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
https://principia-scientific.com/separating-fact-from-fiction/#comment-98198
So to claim that energy can spontaneously flow ‘cooler to warmer’ is directly analogous to claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill. Of course, sane folks know that water has to be pumped uphill (ie: up a pressure gradient), just as energy from a cooler object has to be pumped (via external energy) up an energy density gradient.
Using dimensional analysis:
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Note that pressure and energy density have the same units, and pressure gradient and energy density gradient have the same units… because energy density is pressure (radiation pressure), and an energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
Learn more here:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
https://principia-scientific.com/separating-fact-from-fiction/#comment-98166
https://principia-scientific.com/separating-fact-from-fiction/#comment-98167
https://principia-scientific.com/the-fallacy-of-bell-curves/#comment-98554
Reply
Avatar
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
January 17, 2024 at 8:11 pm | #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Planck concluded that the specific wavelengths of energy being emitted and absorbed by objects were a property of the energy, but it is a function of the mass emitting it. This gave us the nonsensical world of quantum physics, creating different laws of physics for subatomic reality.”
Now you’ve changed what you claim was Planck’s origin of quantum theory, Herb… you’re just flinging out whatever sounds good to you, aren’t you?
In reality, Planck derived quantum theory by empirically observing the emission spectra of various elements excited to various electronic mode quantum states. If quantum theory weren’t true, photons would not be emitted by elements at specific frequencies, with specific jumps (quantum jumps) between each bound electron orbital radius and therefore specific jumps in emitted photon wavelength.
Just stop, Herb. Stop stating your fantasies as though they’re gospel truth, stop making stuff up, stop leading people astray.
Buckle down, crack a book, and study.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
(You need to back off on the personal attacks as it lowers civil discourse already had to close two comment threads because of this) SUNMOD- Administrator
James Bernard “The Dunce” McGinn, who can’t even read a simple sentence for comprehension weighs in with his “It is inconceivable that water would not flow uphill!” drivel. LOL
There is no confusion except in your addled mind, Dunce. Science is precisely mathematically described, whereas you and Herb Rose bleat out unscientific tripe that has no mathematics.
Go on, show us your mathematical ‘proof’ of any of what your odd hobby theory contends that differs from conventional physics, Dunce. You can’t. LOL
Jimbo “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“It makes no difference what one person says. It’s just moronic to suggest that the photons from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object. If that were true insulation could not work as we know it does.”
Oh, do enlighten everyone as to how you believe insulation to ‘work’, Dunce and tie that into your claim that energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient. Go on, humiliate yourself with your own lack of knowledge again. LOL
“If your premise is incorrect, your conclusion is incorrect”… ever hear that phrase, Dunce? LOL
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
Science is precisely mathematically described,
JMcG:
LOL. All you presented is an analogy. You made a direct analogy between flow of water and flow of EME. This is not science. This is story telling.
Gullible amateurs tend to assume that science is empirical and precise even when it isn’t. The reality is that science is done by humans. Humans are prone to making mistakes. Clausius was not a god. Nor were the people that translated his words from his native Austrian. You are a fool.
Objects are not sentient possessing central control over the photons and photons too are not sentient. You are just confused and gullible.
Kkook:
Go on, show us your mathematical ‘proof’
JMcG:
You got nothing!!!
James McGinn / Genius
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
James Bernard “The Dunce” (if he gets to call himself a ‘genius’, he’s open to being labeled, so I should be free to correctly label him. LOL) McGinn dribbled:
“All you presented is an analogy. You made a direct analogy between flow of water and flow of EME. This is not science.”
I also showed that pressure and energy density have the same units and that therefore energy density is a pressure (radiation pressure)… for energy.
I also showed that pressure gradient and energy density gradient have the same units and that therefore energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
Most people cannot think in terms of energy, energy density and energy density gradient. We need to analogize to something they’re familiar with. Thus, just as, for instance, water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient, energy only spontaneously flows down an energy density gradient. That’s 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, in a nutshell. So one tack to take is to ask people if water can ever spontaneously flow uphill. Of course they’ll say, “No, water cannot flow uphill on its own.” Then show them dimensional analysis.
mass (M), length (L), time (T), absolute temperature (K), amount of substance (N), electric charge (Q), luminous intensity (C)
We denote the dimensions like this: [Mx, Lx, Tx, Kx, Nx, Qx, Cx] where x = the number of that dimension
Force: [M1 L1 T-2] /
Area: [M0 L2 T0] =
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Pressure is Force / Area, and that Pressure Gradient is Pressure / Length. Remind them that water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill). Then introduce energy. Tell them that energy is much like water. It requires an impetus to flow, just as water requires an impetus (pressure gradient) to flow. In the case of radiative energy, that impetus is a radiation energy density gradient, which is analogous to (and in fact, literally is) a radiation pressure gradient.
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] /
Volume: [M0 L3 T0] =
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Energy Density is Energy / Volume, and Energy Density Gradient is Energy Density / Length. Highlight the fact that Pressure and Energy Density have the same units (bolded above). Also highlight the fact that Pressure Gradient and Energy Density Gradient have the same units (bolded above).
So we’re talking about the same concept as water only spontaneously flowing down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill) when we talk of energy (of any form) only spontaneously flowing down an energy density gradient. Energy density is pressure, an energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
It’s a bit more complicated for gases because they can convert that energy density to a change in volume (1 J m-3 = 1 Pa), for constant-pressure processes, which means the unconstrained volume of a gas will change such that its energy density (in J m-3) will tend toward being equal to pressure (in Pa).
And since a warmer object will have higher radiation energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object (because remember, temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant):
https://i.imgur.com/wb9KwS0.png
… ‘backradiation’ can do nothing to warm the surface because energy cannot spontaneously radiatively flow from lower to higher radiation energy density, and thus CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam perpetrated to obtain multiple billions of dollars in funding for trough-grubbing line-toeing ‘scientists’ and to push a Marxist One World Government “Build Back Better” agenda.
Do remember that photons, each a quantum of energy, are considered the force-carrying gauge bosons of the EM interaction.
Going back to dimensional analysis:
We start with Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] and we subtract…
Force: [M1 L1 T-2] *
Length: [M0 L1 T0] = [M0 L0 T0]
We are left with nothing on the ‘transmitting’ end… [M0 L0 T0]. In other words, that Energy is used to apply a Force along a Length. It’s obvious then, that if an equal and opposing Force were applied along that Length, no energy can flow… this is just as true radiatively as it is mechanically.
That Force applied along a Length gives us (on the ‘receiving’ end):
Force: [M1 L1 T-2] *
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Work: [M1 L2 T-2]
You’ll note that Energy and Work have the same units:
Work: [M1 L2 T-2] Energy: [M1 L2 T−2]
For those who want to put it in terms of Momentum:
Momentum: [M1 L1 T−1] *
Velocity: [M0 L1 T-1] =
Work: [M1 L2 T−2]
That means Energy Expended = Force * Length = Momentum * Velocity = Work
There’s a reason for that. Free Energy is defined as that energy capable of performing work. This is reflected in the equation for Free Energy (represented here as a single object and its environment):
F = U – TS + PV
Where: F = Free Energy; U = internal energy; T = absolute temp; S = final entropy; TS = energy the object can receive from the environment; PV = work done to give the system final volume V at pressure P
If U > TS + PV, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS + PV, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS + PV, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
Of course, if we were talking about a system with only two objects with the same physical parameters and nothing else in the system, we could represent the Free Energy as: F = U1 – U2
Which is better represented as internal energy over volume to get energy density (since internal energy is an extensive property), converting the calculation to that of an intensive property and thus allowing us to compare dissimilar-sized objects: F = U1/V1 – U2/V2 = e1 – e2
And that’s exactly what the S-B equation does. Remember that temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by the radiation constant (Stefan’s Constant). Remember that I wrote above:
∴ q = (ε c (eh – ec)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see that the S-B equation is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object (to arrive at the radiation energy density gradient) because Free Energy is all about subtracting the energy density of one object from the energy density of the other object (no matter the form of that energy).
Just for the record, Dunce… the above blows every bit of your blather right out of the water.
Now, how about you just reply with your ‘losing an argument badly’ mantra: “You got nuthin’!” and slink away to nurse your wounded psyche again? LOL
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
James Bernard “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“Objects are not sentient possessing central control over the photons and photons too are not sentient.”
The more you write, the more you sound like a warmist, Jimbo… now you’re using their argument.
Neither photons nor objects need be ‘intelligent’… they interact via the EM radiation field energy density gradient between objects.
Now imagine a cooler object facing a warmer object… the EM radiation field energy density slopes downward from the warmer object toward the cooler object.
The cooler object cannot emit toward the warmer object because the energy density of the field is higher than the energy density of the cooler object.
It also happens to coincide with standard cavity theory…
While an idealized blackbody object emits when its temperature is > 0 K, a graybody object emits when its temperature is > 0 K above its ambient. This is plainly evident in the animated version of the S-B graphic below.
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
Do remember that temperature (T) is a measure of radiation energy density (e), equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant.
As Δe → 0, ΔT → 0, q → 0. As q → 0, the ratio of graybody object total emissive power to idealized blackbody object total emissive power → 0. In other words, emissivity → 0. At thermodynamic equilibrium for a graybody object, there is no radiation energy density gradient and thus no impetus for photon generation.
As Δe → 0, ΔT → 0, photon chemical potential → 0, photon Free Energy → 0. At zero chemical potential, zero Free Energy, the photon can do no work, so there is no impetus for the photon to be absorbed. The ratio of the absorbed to the incident radiant power → 0. In other words, absorptivity → 0.
α = absorptivity = absorbed / incident radiant power
ρ = reflectivity = reflected / incident radiant power
τ = transmissivity = transmitted / incident radiant power
α + ρ + τ = 100%
For opaque surfaces τ = 0% ∴ α + ρ = 100%
If α = 0%, 0% + ρ = 100% ∴ ρ = 100% … all incident photons are reflected at thermodynamic equilibrium for graybody objects.
This coincides with standard cavity theory… applying cavity theory outside a cavity, for two graybody objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, no absorption nor emission takes place. The photons remaining in the intervening space set up a standing wave, with the wavemode nodes at the object surfaces by dint of the boundary constraints. Nodes being a zero-crossing point (and anti-nodes being the positive and negative peaks), no energy can be transferred into or out of the objects. Photon chemical potential is zero, they can do no work, photon Free Energy is zero, they can do no work. Thus there is no impetus for the photons to be absorbed. Should one object change temperature, the standing wave becomes a traveling wave with the group velocity proportional to the radiation energy density gradient and in the direction of the cooler object.
You’d understand this if you took a deep dive to understand the S-B equation:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
Alas, you’ve got to defend your indefensible hobby theory and your self-proclaimed ‘genius’ status, which is why you’re going to such great lengths to beclown yourself. LOL
Where’s the maths corroborating your odd hobby theory, James? Why haven’t you posted it? LOL
james McGinn
| #
Kkook:
I also showed that pressure and energy density have the same units
JMcG:
They were given the same units by a human being, you mental midget.
Kkook:
and that therefore energy density is a pressure (radiation pressure)… for energy.
JMcG:
You are confused. Air pressure moves through uniform space. Energy requires matter as a medium.
Kkook:
I also showed that pressure gradient and energy density gradient have the same units and that therefore energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
JMcG:
Faulty reasoning. You are over-analogizing.
Kkook:
Most people cannot think in terms of energy
JMcG:
You are the moron analogizing between pressure and energy. Don’t worry about others. Get your own act together first.
Kkook:
We need to analogize to something they’re familiar with.
JMcG:
Should we not be concerned about he accuracy of the analogy?
Kkook:
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] /
Volume: [M0 L3 T0] =
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
JMcG:
If the narrative is wrong the math is irrelevant.
You don’t understand the math. For you it is just a tool to look smart.
You are just a confused troll.
James McGinn / Genius
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
James Bernard “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“They were given the same units by a human being, you mental midget.”
Nothing was assigned, James. Dimensional analysis doesn’t just randomly assign units, it discovers what units, what dimensionality, any particular entity exhibits.
James Bernard “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“Energy requires matter as a medium.”
Bwahahaa! Yes, folks, James Bernard McGinn actually believes that photons have invariant-mass.
What mediates the EM field is the electric field and the magnetic field, neither of which have mass, James.
A photon is nothing more than a quantum of energy, a massless spin-1 particle, consisting of the electric field and magnetic field oscillating in quadrature about a common axis.
Wow, your depth of knowledge is even more shallow than I’d surmised. Why would you humiliate yourself like that? LOL
James Bernard “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“If the narrative is wrong the math is irrelevant.
Prove it, then. Go on, prove it. You’ve made an assertion, back that assertion up, James.
Don’t… don’t tell me you can’t even do dimensional analysis, James?! Because if you were able to, you’d see quite easily that everything I’ve stated is correct.
Bwahahahaa! James McGinn can’t even do dimensional analysis, yet he wants everyone to believe he’s got a deep enough knowledge base to speak authoritatively on this topic! What a joke. LOL
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
Nothing was assigned, James. Dimensional analysis
JMcG:
Dimensional analysis? Really?
Meaningless.
You are just a confused nitwit.
James McGinn / Genius
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
James Bernard “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“Dimensional analysis? Really?
Meaningless.
You are just a confused nitwit.”
Seems that yet again you’re the only one confused, Dunce. LOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Map%3A_Chemistry_-_The_Central_Science_(Brown_et_al.)/01%3A_Introduction_-_Matter_and_Measurement/1.06%3A_Dimensional_Analysis
“Dimensional analysis is amongst the most valuable tools physical scientists use.”
Ah, it’s not that you can’t do dimensional analysis, it’s that you don’t even know what dimensional analysis is… you want everyone to believe you know what you’re talking about, but you don’t even know what one of the most valuable tools to physical scientists is… as you proclaim yourself to be a “scientists” (your word, repeated several times by you over several comments). LOL
That’s a bit embarrassing for you, eh? Why do you feel compelled to humiliate yourself multiple times daily, Dunce? LOL
James Bernard McGinn
| #
KKook:
“Dimensional analysis is amongst the most valuable tools physical scientists use.”
jMcG:
Don’t change the subject, you evasive POS.
Using your own words, explain how you applied “dimensional analysis” to validate your absurd supposition that we can directly analogize between water flow and heat flow.
Checkmate.
James McGinn / Genius
Ah, it’s not that you can’t do dimensional analysis, it’s that you don’t even know what dimensional analysis is… you want everyone to believe you know what you’re talking about, but you don’t even know what one of the most valuable tools to physical scientists is… as you proclaim yourself to be a “scientists” (your word, repeated several times by you over several comments). LOL
That’s a bit embarrassing for you, eh? Why do you feel compelled to humiliate yourself multiple times daily, Dunce? LOL
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
James Bernard “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“Using your own words, explain how you applied “dimensional analysis” to validate your absurd supposition that we can directly analogize between water flow and heat flow.”
You do realize that by exhibiting dimensional homogeneity, pressure and energy density are essentially the same thing in different form, yes?
For instance, we use laser radiation pressure to compress deuterium/tritium pellets for fusion reactors. In fact, those lasers produced the highest pressure ever accomplished by humankind at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
“Radiation pressure (also known as light pressure) is mechanical pressure exerted upon a surface due to the exchange of momentum between the object and the electromagnetic field.”
It must suck for you to be wrong all the time, James. How about you pick up a book and educate yourself? LOL
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Now, knowing that you’re a pedant, James, you’ll likely next bleat something along the lines of:
“That Wikipedia link discusses radiation pressure. It says nothing of energy density!”
And then I’ll humiliate you yet again. LOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
“In general, the pressure of electromagnetic waves can be obtained from the vanishing of the trace of the electromagnetic stress tensor: since this trace equals 3P − u, we get:”
P = u / 3 = (4 σ / 3 c) T^4
where:
u = radiation energy per unit volume
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant
c = light speed
And radiation energy per unit volume is energy density.
You’re beginning to bore me, James… you’re so prototypical that you’re predictable… you are a dime-a-dozen kook with the same skewed thought processes as the last hundred kooks I’ve squashed. LOL
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Planck concluded that the specific wavelengths of energy being emitted and absorbed by objects were a property of the energy, but it is a function of the mass emitting it. This gave us the nonsensical world of quantum physics, creating different laws of physics for subatomic reality.”
Now you’ve changed what you claim was Planck’s origin of quantum theory, Herb… you’re just flinging out whatever sounds good to you, aren’t you?
In reality, Planck derived quantum theory by empirically observing the emission spectra of various elements excited to various electronic mode quantum states. If quantum theory weren’t true, photons would not be emitted by elements at specific frequencies, with specific jumps (quantum jumps) between each bound electron orbital radius and therefore specific jumps in emitted photon wavelength.
Just stop, Herb. Stop stating your fantasies as though they’re gospel truth, stop making stuff up, stop leading people astray.
Buckle down, crack a book, and study.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“Planck’s law, that the energy of light is a function of its frequency times a constant, is wrong.
I await your mathematically-precise disproof, Herb. Oh, and you’ll have to come up with something which is more performative to replace it. If you can’t do that, shut your gob. You’re just denying scientific reality, sans any actual proof.
Herb Rose wrote:
“The energy of light from the sun reaching Neptune is a tenth of a percent of the energy of the light reaching the Earth and yet there is no detectable red shift.”
As has been explained to you before, Herb, that is a result of the photons spreading out in space as they traverse an ever-expanding sphere from their origin. It has nothing to do with ‘red-shift’, as there is nothing by which photons in vacuum could have their wavelengths altered save gravity.
And yet, here you are, spewing the same idiocy in yet another ‘article’.
Just stop. Buckle down, crack a book, study, learn how the universe actually works, and stop embarrassing yourself.
Reply
Hans Meijer
| #
LOL@KKK wrote: ”I await your mathematically-precise disproof, Herb. Oh, and you’ll have to come up with something which is more performative to replace it.” My suggestion, when doing so, Herb: Please, don’t forget to address the Ultraviolet Catastrophe (I take it that you know all about that), resolved in the process by that misguided Mr. Planck…
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Hans,
You want me to explain why something that does not exist in reality (black body) can’t conform to reality. The fantasy universe is your domain, not mine.
In reality the energy of a wave is in its amplitude, not its frequency or wavelength. As it spreads over a larger area the amplitude decreases and the shorter wavelengths disappear, which is why it is the longer wavelengths (infrared, radio) that remain as light travels through space. The spectrum, frequency, and wavelengths emitted by a hydrogen atom from Andromeda are the same as the ones emitted by the sun. The energy of that light is not the same.
Herb
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“You want me to explain why something that does not exist in reality (black body) can’t conform to reality.”
We’ve been able to directly image 2 black holes now, Herb. Below is the image of Sagittarius A, the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, along with its accretion disk.
http://news.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/EHT_PR_Main_Image_Wide_2500.jpg
Kooks often insist upon being wrong, Herb. You’re not special in that respect, but it could be argued that you are ‘speshul’ in a completely different (window-licking, crayon-eating) way. LOL
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Just in case you didn’t grok my last post, Herb… a black hole is the most ideal example of an idealized blackbody object there is in the universe… it must absorb all radiation incident upon it (all radiation that crosses its event horizon); it must (eventually) emit all energy it absorbs (all black holes will eventually evaporate); it emits as close to absolute zero as is practicable (2.73 K); and given that it is a black hole, its emissivity (the ratio of the total emissive power of a body to the total emissive power of a perfectly black body) is as close to 1 as is practicable.
Herb Rose wrote:
“In reality the energy of a wave is in its amplitude, not its frequency or wavelength. ”
Let’s see your mathematical equation for that, Herb. If you cannot describe it mathematically, it’s just fantasy ideation.
E = ℎf
where:
E = photon energy (J)
ℎ = Planck constant (6.62607015e−34 J⋅Hz−1)
f = frequency (Hz)
E = hc / λ
where:
E = photon energy (J)
λ = wavelength
c = speed of light in vacuum (299792458 m sec-1)
ℎ = Planck constant (6.62607015e−34 J⋅Hz−1)
The sinusoidal ‘waves’ of photons are not actually waves… they’re spirals.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161024110935if_/http://staff.washington.edu/bradleyb/spiralsynth/fig3.1.gif
https://web.archive.org/web/20181117044308if_/https://www.dsprelated.com/josimages_new/mdft/img449.png
https://web.archive.org/web/20181117053048if_/https:/www.dsprelated.com/josimages_new/mdft/img463.png
The first image above shows the real (cosine… labeled ‘Re’ in the image) and imaginary (sine… labeled ‘Im’ in the image) components of an electromagnetic ‘wave’. When viewed in line with its direction of travel, it will appear to be a circle, and when viewed orthogonal to its direction of travel, it will appear to be a sinusoid, when in reality it’s a spiral.
This is because a sinusoid is a circular function.
https://i.imgur.com/zofvpkI.png
You’ll note the peak amplitude of the sinusoid is analogous to the radius of the circle, the peak-to-peak amplitude is analogous to the diameter of the circle, and the frequency of the sinusoid is analogous to the rotational rate of the circle. You’ll further note the circumference of the circle is equal to 2 π radians, and the wavelength of a sinusoid is equal to 2 π radians, so the wavelength of the sinusoid is analogous to the circumference of the circle.
Get that, Herb? The amplitude (ie: the circumference of the circle) is directly related to the wavelength.
Thus the magnetic field and electric field (oscillating in quadrature about a common axis) of a photon is a circle geometrically transformed into a spiral by the photon’s movement through space-time.
This is why all singular photons are circularly polarized either parallel or antiparallel to their direction of motion. This is a feature of their being massless and hence having no rest frame (if a photon had a rest frame, no rest mass and no momentum equals nothing, so massless particles must remain in motion), which precludes their exhibiting the third state expected of a spin-1 particle (for a spin-1 particle at rest, it has three spin eigenstates: +1, -1, 0, along the z axis… no rest frame means no 0-spin eigenstate). A macroscopic electromagnetic wave is the tensor product of many singular photons, and thus may be linearly or elliptically polarized if all singular photons comprising the macroscopic electromagnetic wave are not circularly polarized in the same direction.
This is also why photons do not really travel in a ‘straight line’ (the path of least space)… they travel along the path of least time. Since invariant-mass objects such as planets and stars warp (expand) space (and thus slow down time), this causes light to ‘bend around’ large celestial objects (the cause of gravitational lensing), which is the phenomenon which originally substantiated Einstein’s Relativity theory.
For a practical lab experiment, go outside on a sunny day and stretch out a Slinky so its shadow falls upon a surface perpendicular to the incoming sunlight… you’ll see the shadow of the spiral of the Slinky appears as a sinusoid. Now turn the Slinky so its axis is aligned parallel to the incoming light such that the light is falling through the center of it, you’ll see the shadow of the spiral of the Slinky appears as a circle. Our oscilloscopes show us a shadow of reality because they can only account for the electric field and not the magnetic field of electromagnetic radiation.
The above ties into vacuum polarization (due to the high charge density in the vicinity of the nucleus of an atom) creating a geometrical transform of resonant scalar quantum vacuum wave modes to a circular (spherical, given the DOF) orbital path of an atom’s bound electron(s) (ie: the bound electron ‘spirals’ around the nucleus, (acted upon by the Lorentz force of the EM interaction between bound electron and nucleal proton(s) and sustained by energy from the quantum vacuum), which is why a bound electron must have an integer number of de Broglie waves in its orbit (the underlying reason for quantization of energy and hence the basis of Quantum Mechanics) or it sets up a destructive-interference orbit which lowers electron orbital radius, which is how and why electron orbital radius falls to ground state from a higher excited state when the excitation energy sustaining it in that higher orbital is removed). This is what feeds energy to a ground-state bound electron to prevent it ‘spiraling in’ to the oppositely-charged proton(s) in the nucleus. At its ground state, the energy obtained from the quantum vacuum exactly equals the energy emitted via virtual photons (magnetism… which all invariant-mass matter exhibits (usually diamagnetism, although certain electron valence configurations allow ferromagnetism to override the underlying diamagnetism)), as Boyer[1], Haisch and Ibison[2], Puthoff[3] and NASA[4] showed.
[1] https://sci-hub.se/10.1103/physrevd.11.790
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713220130/https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0106/0106097.pdf
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20190713225420/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13330878_Ground_state_of_hydrogen_as_a_zero-point-fluctuation-determined_state
“We show here that, within the stochastic electrodynamic formulation and at the level of Bohr theory, the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground-state orbit and radiation absorbed from zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field, thereby resolving the issue of radiative collapse of the Bohr atom.”
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20180719194558/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150006842.pdf
“The energy level of the electron is a function of its potential energy and kinetic energy. Does this mean that the energy of the quantum vacuum integral needs to be added to the treatment of the captured electron as another potential function, or is the energy of the quantum vacuum somehow responsible for establishing the energy level of the ‘orbiting’ electron? The only view to take that adheres to the observations would be the latter perspective, as the former perspective would make predictions that do not agree with observation.”
This ties into the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics (2LoT)… an excited bound electron is always trying to emit a photon to achieve a lower energy state, but the energy sustaining the bound electron in its current state prevents the photon being emitted because energy can only flow from a higher to a lower energy density region. When that excitation energy is removed, a photon can be emitted, electron orbit no longer has an integer number of de Broglie waves, a destructive-interference orbit is thus set up, and the electron falls to a lower state in which there are an integer number of de Broglie waves in the orbit. At ground state, energy flows from the quantum vacuum to sustain the electron in its ground state orbital as it emits Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons (a point charge undergoing acceleration (in this case angular acceleration) in relation to its electric field will emit Larmor radiation)[5][6], which it does because the quantum vacuum is anisotropic (it fluctuates) under vacuum polarization in the high charge density in the vicinity of the nucleus of an atom. Thus 2LoT holds even in the quantum realm.
[5] https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9910019.pdf
[6] https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3275
This ties into the very underpinnings of the meta-stability of invariant-mass matter (and hence the continued existence of the universe as we know it) and provides insight into the connection between classical and quantum theory.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“In reality the energy of a wave is in its amplitude, not its frequency or wavelength. ”
Now, the more astute observer will figure out that as wavelength decreases (ie: photon energy increases), the amplitude decreases.
Remember that a photon is a circle… the electric and magnetic field oscillating in quadrature about a common axis… extended into a spiral by dint of the photon’s necessary movement through space-time.
https://i.imgur.com/zofvpkI.png
Remember, the peak amplitude of the sinusoid is analogous to the radius of the circle, the peak-to-peak amplitude is analogous to the diameter of the circle, and the frequency of the sinusoid is analogous to the rotational rate of the circle. You’ll further note the circumference of the circle is equal to 2 π radians, and the wavelength of a sinusoid is equal to 2 π radians, so the wavelength of the sinusoid is analogous to the circumference of the circle.
As the wavelength ↓, circumference ↓. As circumference ↓, radius ↓. As radius ↓, amplitude ↓.
It’s not the amplitude that determines the photon’s energy, it’s the frequency.
Yet again Herb Rose is diametrically opposite to reality. It seems he’s making that a habit. LOL
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“This is why it is the longer infrared and radio waves that travel the furthest distance through space, even though physicists will tell you they have the least energy. ”
As you’ve been told in the past, Herb, there is nothing in vacuum which would annihilate higher-energy photons… all photons of any wavelength would travel infinitely through vacuum. The only things in vacuum which can affect photon wavelength are gravity and, over exceptionally long distances, universal expansion.
The reason infrared, radio waves and microwaves are used in astronomy is because of universal expansion. There are simply few higher-energy photons available to peer long distances into space, because those photons have been red-shifted by universal expansion.
But here you are, reiterating the same incorrect tripe again, even after it’s been explained to you.
Again, stop making stuff up, buckle down, crack a book and study.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“As the light emitted by the atom is transmitted through the energy field, its speed changes as the strength of the energy field changes. When the light moves away from the source, in a decreasing field, it will cause the speed of the disturbance to slow producing longer wavelengths (red shift). When traveling in the increasing strength of an energy field, radiated from another object, the speed of the light will increase, causing a blue shift.”
You do understand that it is the non-zero expectation value of the EM component of the quantum vacuum which sets the ‘speed limit’ for light, yes? That in a ‘perfect vacuum’ (no matter, no energy density), light speed would be infinite, and as vacuum energy density increases, light slows down, yes?
That’s diametrically opposite to what you’ve claimed, Herb.
Here, let me translate your entire article, Herb:
“Because I reject scientific reality, it makes no sense to me, so we should reject even more of scientific reality by repealing 2LoT!”
Again, buckle down, crack a book and study, Herb.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose has denied repeatedly the Mass-Energy Equivalency (E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4).
IOW, he denies that invariant-mass matter and energy are two forms of the same thing.
Well, we already know how to convert mass to energy… a nuclear weapon or nuclear power plant converts the binding energy of fissile atoms to energy.
In fact, we can even create an EMP from a conventional explosion (no binding energy involved) because every energetic interaction has a E/c^2 conversion of energy into EM (which Einstein wrote about in his 1905 Annus Mirabilus paper “Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?”)… explosively-pumped flux compression generator EMP bombs are perfect examples of this, but it applies to even low-energy interactions (but the EM created is so low-energy as to be practically immeasurable).
This is why, if you look at the 9/11/2001 videos of the World Trade Center, you’ll see one, obviously a video taken with a videotape camera, which shows the classic EMP signature on the tape (glitches in the video) right as the plane explodes. Some of the energy of the explosion created an EMP strong enough to imprint on the video tape.
Another example of mass conversion to energy is firing at low speed toward each other an electron and a positron… the masses disappear and two photons appear, each with the energy, hv, equal to the mc^2 of each particle. That is, the mass is changed into electromagnetic energy.
We’ve struggled, however, in converting energy into matter… but we’ve done so:
https://sci-hub.st/http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12512
They’ve been able to create pseudo-molecules (photonic matter) consisting of 3 photons… they do not act like photons they act like matter… the photons comprising the photonic matter strongly interact (whereas regular photons only very weakly interact), they are not at the speed of light (whereas regular photons must always be at the speed of light for the medium they are traversing), and they have mass (whereas regular photons are massless).
They’ve also been able to create electrons and positrons by colliding photons:
https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-generate-matter-directly-from-light-physics-phenomena-predicted-more-than-80-years-ago/
And we’ve even been able to concretize photons from virtual photons directly out of the quantum vacuum using a SQUID (Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) as a relativistic mirror:
https://www.sci.news/physics/scientists-created-light-from-vacuum.html
https://sci-hub.st/http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10561
The above represents the first tiny step toward a Star Trek-type replicator, in which energy is directly formed into matter.
It also represents yet another topic upon which Herb Rose is wrong. LOL
And I’ll close with my usual missive to Herb:
“Buckle down, crack a book, study.”
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Great to see and hear from you again KOOK’S, and not the fake phuuker who trolled around after you trying to confuse people, i wouldn’t mind reading more of your encounters again its just like the old days with you, before postma lost the plot.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Yeah, life interfered for a bit.
Most likely the impersonating troll was ‘evenminded’, out of the Austin, TX area, in Lakeway, TX.
I got his IP address… he should be very, very cautious about impersonating people now… especially using people’s real-life names, as he admitted to doing to climate skeptic Dave Burton.
He’s using Spectrum (Charter Communications). On that IP address sits a private server:
garthan [dot] talsever [dot] org
www [dot] talsever [dot] com
Now you can find him, too, if you so desire. LOL
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Herb Rose wrote:
“The law may sound right, like many generalities, but the problem with it is that it is not based in reality.”
2LoT (aka: The Theorem Of The Equivalence Of Transformations, which is what Clausius originally referred to it as) is precisely mathematically described, Herb. There are no generalities except in that muddled mess of your own mind. LOL
For an idealized reversible process:
W = Q (1 – (T_2 / T_1))
Where:
W = work
Q = energy transferred
T = temperature
For a real-world irreversible process:
W < Q (1 – (T_2 / T_1))
For all processes:
W ≤ Q (1 – (T_2 / T_1))
Remember that:
ΔS = ΔQ / T
IOW, Herb, the change in entropy is equal to the energy transferred divided by the temperature.
T = 4^√(e/a))
IOW, Herb, temperature is a measure of the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant.
Now go back and read my comments above about how energy can only spontaneously flow down an energy density gradient much as water can only spontaneously flow down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill) because energy density is a pressure (radiation pressure) and thus energy density gradient is a pressure gradient. Pressure and energy density have the same units, and pressure gradient and energy density gradient have the same units for a reason, Herb.
I haven’t found a single statement in your ‘article’ which is correct, Herb… but I’ll keep looking… the Law of Averages dictates that there’s got to be at least one, right? That would, at least, put you at half the correctitude of a stopped clock… which would give you something to salvage from that train wreck of an ‘article’ with which to salve your wounded psyche. LOL
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Herb mean’s well, and is a nice bloke, where do i access your scratchings these days, like i said i like following your interactions, cos one smart cookie, or kookie.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
To LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks,
(You need to back off on the personal attacks as it lowers civil discourse already had to close two comment threads because of this) SUNMOD- Administrator
You are also thread bombing a single person which is unacceptable, give him a chance to reply.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Sunset Tommy wrote:
“(You need to back off on the personal attacks as it lowers civil discourse already had to close two comment threads because of this) SUNMOD- Administrator”
And you’ve done the same in the past… remember ‘evenminded’ hijacking Nepal’s pseudonym on 01 Aug 2022, using the email address annamay314159 [at] gmail.com? Yeah, you blocked an extremely intelligent climate skeptic (Nepal) without bothering to figure out that he’d had his pseudonym hijacked, which is what ‘evenminded’ tends to do… he’s even done it to Joe Postma, Immortal600 and myself.
We are in a war for our very way of life, and you want everyone to play nice with those attempting to destroy civilization as we know it, and those too stupid to realize they’re enabling those attempting to destroy civilization as we know it? You’re enabling them… allow me to blast them off the site so hard that they know never to return and the problem is solved… otherwise you’re just enabling them to continue acting as Judas Goats, leading people astray with fake sciency-sounding blatherskite… and in the process, given that they claim they’re on our side, you enable them to make our side look like a bunch of uneducated yokels.
Why is it that James McGinn and Herb Rose both shill for a take on radiative energetic exchange that is exactly what the warmists need people to believe in order for their scam to be perpetuated? Why have both of them persisted in promulgating inaccuracies even after those inaccuracies are proven inaccurate? Why have neither one of them stepped up to declare whose side they’re really on? Are you even asking these questions, as you allow them to publish articles on the site that don’t contain even one accurate statement? Whose side are you on?
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Your excuses to justify chronic personal name calling is boring have seen it many times in various places I have moderated which ends up being stopped when it persisted, YOU have been warned several times now and you haven’t backed off while I have no problem with you attacking their writing but attacking the author personally isn’t accepted here.
You have been banned elsewhere for the same problem you have here an inability to follow basic civility standards that has been asserted openly in front of you.
This is your LAST warning.
SUNMOD- Administrator
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
I don’t publish articles, my main administrative role here is to MODERATE the comments.
I am on the side of open debate here which is why I haven’t been deleting anything I just warn people who keeps attacking the person which mature people normally understand is wrong while I have no problem with you attacking their writings on the subjects connected to the topic you seem unable to stop the personal attacks a sign of your bad temper or what?
You have been warned for the last time focus on their writing not them personally.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
James disappeared quicker than a fart in one of his Tornado’s, once all the interesting stuff appeared.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
“one of his Tornado’s”
There’s only ever been one.
Years ago over on CFACT, I used a tornado tracker to prove that he’d only ever seen one small F1 tornado from a distance of more than 1/2 mile (because it was the only tornado in his area during that entire decades-long time period and it came near but didn’t broach his town borders), when he was younger. He ran away from the forum for a couple months after that. That stung him badly. LOL
I don’t know if I could live with myself if I’d built my entire life upon a playing card tower of lies, self-aggrandizement, fake credentialism and twisting of scientific reality… but I guess it assuages some especially damaged people. LOL
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
one of his Tornado’s”
There’s only ever been one.
Years ago over on CFACT, I used a tornado tracker to prove that he’d only ever seen one small F1 tornado from a distance of more than 1/2 mile (because it was the only tornado in his area during that entire decades-long time period and it came near but didn’t broach his town borders), when he was younger. He ran away from the forum for a couple months after that. That stung him badly. LOL
I don’t know if I could live with myself if I’d built my entire life upon a playing card tower of lies, self-aggrandizement, fake credentialism and twisting of scientific reality… but I guess it assuages some especially damaged people. LOL
JMcG:
It must be frustrating to be so sure you are right and so completely unable to explain how or why.
When a troll encounters something they can’t find in Wikipedia their head explodes.
You got nothing, you vague nitwit.
James McGinn / Genius
Why I Am World’s Number One Expert On Physics of storms
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Why-I-Am-Worlds-Number-One-Expert-On-Physics-of-Water–Storms–and-Atmospheric-Flow-e28kvau
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Hey, Jimbo… how’d that kooksuit you were going to level against the climate back in 2019 go? Did you successfully sue the climate? LOL
Remember?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/pEJIZNa7RcY
Yeah, that’s me, Jimbo. Surprise! Seems I’ve been drop-kicking you for all of eternity, eh? LOL
That brings up a lot of questions you’ve been dodging for years, Jimbo:
“Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
How do your “jet stream vortices” travel hundreds of miles away from the jet stream, without detection by satellite or Doppler radar, and know where and when to touch down so they always hit clouds, rather than tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky, James? Is your “jet stream / giant tornado in the sky” sentient, James?”
How is your “plasma not-a-plasma” (which you have admitted is a hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength, extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays… except photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the troposphere to form your “plasma not-a-plasma”, Jim?
How is the energy to plasmize your “plasma not-a-plasma” not dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the planet given that the energy must be in the troposphere where nearly all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
Now that it’s been proven that water molecule polarity doesn’t change upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes in the solvent properties of water… and we know those properties do not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your implausible claims are workable, Jim?
Oh… and about that tornado…
https://data.thecalifornian.com/tornado-archive/
https://i.imgur.com/cgHsTFJ.png
It must be frustrating to know you are wrong, and to know that sane folk can explain why. LOL
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
For the record, that is all of the tornadoes in James Bernard “The Dunce” McGinn’s local area since 1950. LOL
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes except for negligible warming at the tropopause (where it absorbs a higher proportion of cloud-reflected solar insolation… remember that ~54% of solar insolation is IR):
https://imgur.com/R6uHyvK.png
The image above is from a presentation given by Dr. Maria Z. Hakuba, an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.
https://imgur.com/O4PkEPH.png
The image above is adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.
Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.
At 287.64 K (the latest stated average temperature of Earth) and an emissivity of 0.93643 (calculated from NASA’s ISCCP program from data collected 1983-2004), at a photon wavelength of 14.98352 µm (the primary spectral absorption wavelength of CO2), the spectral radiance is only 5.43523 W / m^2 / sr / µm (integrated radiance from 13.98352 µm – 15.98352 µm of 10.8773 W/sr-m^2 to fully take into account the absorption shoulders of CO2).
That means that the maximum that CO2 could absorb would be 10.8773 W/sr-m^2, if all CO2 were in the CO2{v20(0)} vibrational mode quantum state.
While the Boltzmann Factor calculates that 10.816% of CO2 will be excited in one of its {v2} vibrational mode quantum states at 288 K, the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function shows that ~24.9% will be excited. This is higher than the Boltzmann Factor calculated for CO2 because faster molecules collide more often, weighting the reaction cross-section more toward the higher end.
Thus that drops to 8.1688523 W/sr-m^2 able to be absorbed. Remember, molecules which are already vibrationally excited can not absorb radiation with energy equivalent to the vibrational mode quantum state energy at which they are already excited. That radiation passes the vibrationally excited molecule by. So as more CO2 molecules become vibrationally excited, it has the same effect as though CO2 concentration were lowered… there are fewer of them available to absorb that radiation.
That’s for all CO2, natural and anthropogenic… anthropogenic CO2 accounts for ~3.63% (per IPCC AR4) of total CO2 flux, thus anthropogenic CO2 can only absorb 0.29652933849 W/sr-m^2.
CO2 absorbs ~50% within 1 meter, thus anthropogenic CO2 will absorb 0.148264669245 W/m^2 in the first meter, and the remainder 0.148264669245 W/m^2 within the next ~9 meters.
CO2 will absorb this radiation regardless of any increase in atmospheric concentration… the extinction depth is ~10.4 m at 14.98352 µm wavelength. A doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration would reduce that to ~9.7 m. Thus any tropospheric thermalization which would occur at a higher CO2 atmospheric concentration is already taking place at the current CO2 atmospheric concentration… the atmosphere is effectively 100% opaque at that photon frequency.
Thus the net effect of CO2 thermalization at the current or at an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration is an increase in CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convective transport to the upper atmosphere.
You will note that this implies that all ‘anthropogenic warming’ that is claimed to be taking place must be taking place within 1 extinction depth (~10.4 m) of the surface of the planet (and fully 50% of that within ~1.04 m of the surface).
One can ascertain extinction depth one of two ways: 1) go line-by-line through the spectrum to tally the absorption cross-section at each specific wavelength from 13.98352 – 15.98352 µm; 2) treat the radiation as if it were a radio signal and use the standard radio signal extinction depth calculations for that 13.98352 – 15.98352 µm waveband (18756347663093 Hz to 21438983746582 Hz)… both arrive at nearly the same results.
An increased CO2 atmospheric concentration will emit more radiation (simply because there are more molecules absorbing energy, more molecules with a higher DOF and thus higher molar heat capacity transiting energy from surface to upper troposphere, and more molecules capable of emitting radiation… remember that as CO2 concentration in any given parcel of air increases, the CO2 displaces the much more prevalent homonuclear diatomics N2 and O2 which have a net-zero magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR radiation unless the monoatomic is perturbed via collision at the same time as a photon incides upon the molecule), thus more radiation will be emitted to space, and that represents a loss of energy to the system known as ‘Earth’, which is a cooling process.
In short, an increased CO2 atmospheric concentration increases thermodynamic coupling between heat source (surface) and heat sink (space), just as any coolant does.
We live, at the surface of the planet, in what can be analogized to the evaporator section of a world-sized AC unit, with water acting as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense):
The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:
A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it gives up its energy to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.
… and with other polyatomics acting as less effective coolants (mainly because at prevalent Earthly temperatures, their latent heat capacity doesn’t come into play).
The monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics would be analogous to noncondensible gases in an A/C system… they dilute the more effective coolant gases and thus reduce the efficiency at which energy is transferred (because polyatomics can emit, whereas monoatomics cannot emit and homonuclear diatomics cannot emit as easily).
It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse’ gases… remember that an actual greenhouse works by hindering convection (by enclosing an area in glass so the air inside cannot convect away).
Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR.
Homonuclear diatomics (O2 , N2 ) have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision.
In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics, the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy to space, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.
The climastrologists have flipped reality on its head because the easiest lie to tell is one in which reality is inverted, in which causation is reversed… most people cannot tell the difference between reality and flipped-causality. They lack the scientific foundation to ascertain that CO2 and water vapor are not ‘greenhouse gases’ and are indeed actually net atmospheric radiative coolants.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Putting more co2 in the atmosphere is like putting more holes in a bucket, they only acknowledge more back radiation from the extra co2, and ignore the extra outward flow to space, and when there is no extra energy coming in and more energy leaving quicker then something is cooling quicker and that’s the atmosphere, hence the original co2 global cooling fear mongering….everything is ass about face with the cli fi nerds.
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Gary Ashe wrote:
“they only acknowledge more back radiation from the extra co2”
And as I’ve proven, that ‘backradiation’ does not and cannot do work upon the surface (where that radiation originated in the first place)… it’s a mathematical artifact due to misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h <– graybody object S-B equation
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K) 1 m^2 <– applying definitional conditions for blackbody
= σ T^4 <– blackbody object S-B equation
The ‘A_h’ term is merely a multiplier, used if one is calculating for an area larger than unity [for instance: >1 m^2], which converts the result from radiant exitance (W m-2, radiant flux per unit area) to radiant flux (W).
An idealized blackbody object assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition. Thus idealized blackbodies emit when > 0 K. Idealized blackbody objects don’t actually exist, they’re idealizations (and provable contradictions that indeed cannot exist)… the closest we can come here on Earth is laboratory blackbodies that are close to the definitional conditions within a certain waveband.
A graybody object assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1. Thus graybody objects emit when > 0 K above their ambient.
By treating real-world graybody objects as if they’re idealized blackbodies, the climastrologists inflate radiant exitance of all objects. In essence, they isolate each object into its own system so the objects cannot interact via the EM field energy density gradient between the objects, they then calculate for emission to 0 K (which they must do, because they disregard the EM field energy density gradient between objects), which inflates radiant exitance, then they subtract a wholly fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler energy flow to get the equation to balance.
Temperature is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant).
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = ^4√(e/(4σ/c))
T = ^4√(e/a)
Since we’re using the Kelvin temperature scale, which has its base at 0 K, we can calculate temperature (and thus radiation energy density) as above. Energy density at 0 K is zero, thus temperature at zero energy density is, of course, 0 K.
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
∴ q = ε σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c))) Ah
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
∴ q = (ε c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object.
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the incorrectly-calculated and thus too high ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object radiation energy density (temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s constant) from warmer object radiation energy density. Radiant exitance of the warmer object is predicated upon the radiation energy density gradient.
For graybody objects, it is the radiation energy density differential between warmer object and cooler object which determines warmer object radiant exitance. The climate alarmists (intentionally) misinterpret the S-B radiant exitance equation for graybody objects. Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower radiation energy density gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) lowers radiant exitance of the warmer object (as compared to its radiant exitance if it were emitting to 0 K). The radiation energy density differential between objects manifests a radiation energy density gradient, each surface’s radiation energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.
How do we know it’s intentional that they do this? Well, the Kiehl-Trenberth “Earth Energy Balance” graphic (and all subsequent similar graphics) do it (that’s the only way the K-T diagram can get to 390 W m-2 surface radiant exitance)… they’re supposedly scientists, if they don’t understand the difference between graybody objects and idealized blackbody objects, between the graybody form of the S-B equation and the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation, they have no business propounding upon anything related to the climate.
One can only conclude that they did so intentionally… the only other option is that they are profoundly incompetent.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
You are light years past my understandings kook’s, but as co2 increases and energy loss from the atmosphere increases and the earth system cools, there has to be less water vapour, which means more photons reach the surface of the planet resulting in more energy in to the system and compensates the loss to balance out, and as far as i can see it has worked like that for ever and will work like that for ever.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does not increase the number of molecules in the atmosphere and since CO2 absorbs energy at -80C, it acts like any other gas molecule transferring energy by convection. Your reasoning is incorrect.
Herb
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
Again, Herb, stop stating your fantasy fizix as though it were gospel truth.
In a given parcel of air, a rising CO2 concentration will mainly displace the far more prominent N2 and O2.
IOW, a radiative polyatomic is displacing practically non-radiative homonuclear diatomics… which can only emit (or absorb) if their non-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via molecular collision at the same instant as a resonant photon incides upon the homonuclear diatomic.
Thus that given parcel of air has more molecules with a higher DOF, more molar heat capacity, and the ability to radiatively emit… if the atmosphere consisted of only non-emitting monoatomics and practically non-emitting homonuclear diatomics, the atmosphere would warm.
In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics, the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy to space, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.
The surface would also have to warm because that ~76.2% of surface energy removal which is currently accomplished via convection, advection and latent heat transport would have to be taken up by surface radiant exitance… and a higher surface radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature per the S-B equation.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Kkook:
IOW, a radiative polyatomic is displacing practically non-radiative homonuclear diatomics…
JMcG:
You are a pedantic ass. CO2 is not a “radiative polytomic.” There is little difference in magnitude of CO2’s thermal properties compared to N2 and O2. There is a slight and insignificant difference in their radiative properties (wavelength’s) which is explicable by their difference in mass. There is no thermal drama in any of it. In fact, the only place there is any thermal drama associated with earth’s atmosphere is with LIQUID water, H2O. And this is due to the highly elastic nature of hydrogen bonds between water molecules (the mechanism of H2O’s high heat capacity).
Kkook:
Thus that given parcel of air has more molecules with a higher DOF, more molar heat capacity, and the ability to radiatively emit… if the atmosphere consisted of only non-emitting monoatomics and practically non-emitting homonuclear diatomics, the atmosphere would warm.
JMcG:
You are just confused. No gasses can cause warming. Gasses have a low heat capacity. Only with H2O is there any thermal drama with the elements of earth’s atmosphere.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
James Bernard “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“You are a pedantic ass.”
The butthurt is strong in you, Dunce. LOL
James Bernard “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“CO2 is not a “radiative polytomic.””
Which of those words do you contest, Dunce?
The radiative?
Then you’d be forced to claim that 14.98352 µm radiation from CO2 doesn’t exist. That’d be pretty silly. LOL
The polyatomic?
poly = more atoms than diatomic
atomic = atomic
CO2, Dunce. Three atoms.
So do let everyone know what voices screaming in your head compelled you to establish once again that you haven’t the first faint clue what you’re talking about, Dunce. LOL
James Bernard “The Dunce” McGinn dribbled:
“There is a slight and insignificant difference in their radiative properties (wavelength’s) which is explicable by their difference in mass.”
Bwahahahaa! Way to show you know next to nothing about this topic, Dunce. LOL
The only (nearly) resonant vibrational mode quantum states are CO2{v3(1)} (4.25677 µm) and N2{v1(1)} (4.26439 µm), and even then, there’s a 2.9 cm-1 difference (when accounting for N2 anharmonicity, centrifugal distortion and vibro-rotational interaction… without accounting for those, the energy differential is 18 cm-1).
You really want to get into quantum state energy with me, after you attempted to claim there was no such thing as rotational mode quantum states, then you attempted to claim that rotational mode quantum states (quantized) and translational mode (non-quantized) were the same? LOL
Go take your psychotropic medication and take a nap, Dunce… you’ve humiliated yourself enough for one day. LOL
herb Rose
| #
Hi James.
You are trying to teach an egomaniac who is an idiot. Can’t be done, education doesn’t fix stupid.
He will never understand that the atmosphere exists because of the kinetic energy of the molecules. No kinetic energy = no atmosphere. Greater energy = larger atmosphere. The greater the altitude, the greater the kinetic energy of the molecules and the less dense the atmosphere. All matter absorbs radiated energy (LOT) including Ar, N2, and O2. (The terms monatomic and homonuclear diatomic is an attempt by an idiot to look like he understands something.) and after these molecules gain energy they must lose it to restore equilibrium. The cannot transfer and lose energy to neighboring molecules by radiation because these molecules are also radiating energy. The energy they gain is lost by increasing their kinetic energy producing infrared radiation. They do not emit visible or UV light They do absorb UV and when that energy exceeds it breaks bonds between atoms they form the N-0 and O3 molecules in the atmosphere.
The loss of kinetic energy by colliding with molecules with less energy at lower altitudes. The increase in these molecules energy does not cause them to become less dense and rise but to gain a downward velocity that is transferred to lower molecules and eventually to the Earth’s surface. Atmospheric pressure is not the wight (gm) of the molecules in the atmosphere but their momentum (mv). If you suspend a mass over a scale, it will record nothing. If you drop the mass the momentum will be recorded. After it has lost energy it will record the weight (gm) of the mass.
This man is giggling idiot (the moniker LOL) who tries to use math and verbiage to give the impression he knows something, but he can’t think and only knows what others have told him. Ignore him.
Herb
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Kkook:
CO2 is a radiative polytomic.
poly = more atoms than diatomic
atomic = atomic
CO2, Three atoms.
JMcG:
Kkooks was right that I had temporarily blanked out on what the word “polytomic” means. But my point stands. Saying that a molecule has dramatic thermal properties because it has three atoms is nonsense.
H2O has three atoms and it has dramatic thermal properties. But H2O never occurs as a gas in earth’s atmosphere. And the reason it has dramatic thermal properties is because of the elasticity of hydrogen bonds as a liquid, which does occur in the atmosphere.
I reacted because this is one of the tactics of global warming fraud.
Kkooks:
Which of those words do you contest, Dunce?
JMcG:
I contest the propaganda tactic of associating polytomic with thermal drama.
So;, Matt and Howdy, do you defend Kkooks? Do you defend other global warming proponents who try to pull the wool over the eyes over the public with fancy semantics like “radiative polytomic”?
James McGinn / Genius
Howdy
| #
“Howdy, do you defend Kkooks?”
I never defended kooks, so, If you wish to use my name in vain, kindly point me to the evidence of your accusation.
“Do you defend other global warming proponents”
Global warming AKA climate change is a scam. If you took notice of my comments on the matter you would know that is my stance.
My policy is to question everything.
It appears you are using me as a surrogate for somebody else.
James McGinn
| #
Howdy, in the comment to which you responded I claimed: “H2O never occurs as a gas in earth’s atmosphere. ” I use this to exemplify my assertion that meteorology is an inept discipline that pretends to have expertise on the physics of storms. In the comment above you stated: My policy is to question everything.
Do you have an opinion one way or another on this issue?
James McGinn / Genius
Howdy
| #
Show me the comment I responded to.
James McGinn
| #
Figure it out.
James McGinn / Genius
Water is the Reason We Have Weather
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Water-is-the-reason-we-have-weather-e2chfkc/a-aalub77
Howdy
| #
It is you, Mr McGinn that needs to figure it out, to uphold your unfounded claim, or it is invalidated. Dismissive comment is not appropriate.
I searched PSI for your sentence, “H2O never occurs as a gas in earth’s atmosphere.” No result. I went back 20 pages to manually check, not found.
Closest were these:
https://principia-scientific.com/is-tony-heller-about-to-join-the-slayers/#comment-98125
“one of you convoluted pretenders has an reproducible experimental evidence of your magical gaseous water.”
https://principia-scientific.com/is-tony-heller-about-to-join-the-slayers/#comment-98098
“Address the fact that you morons believe H2O can become gaseous at ambient temperature”
Regarding meteorologists:
https://principia-scientific.com/new-paper-eviscerates-un-ipccs-climate-term-radiative-forcing/#comment-97813
Meteorologists Are Not Physicists
“It is also a myth that water provides energy to storms through latent heat of condensation. Respective of the physics of storms, meteorology is a bullshit paradigm”
Don’t forget where kooks came onto the scene:
https://principia-scientific.com/new-paper-eviscerates-un-ipccs-climate-term-radiative-forcing/#comments
You will not find me involved, other than to complain:
https://principia-scientific.com/is-tony-heller-about-to-join-the-slayers/#comment-98075
Other than brewing up, I have no interest in H2O, or water vapour, and the rest of it. I never involve myself in fruitless discussion.
You are using me as a proxy in a conversation that never happened. An apology would be usual when one is pointing the finger at an innocent, with no proof of any kind.
sunsettommy
| #
Herb,
Even at -80C it can still absorb IR which immediately begs the question………..
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Sunsettommy,
When matter absorbs energy it switches from radiated energy (which can be observed) into internal energy that increases the motion of atoms across bonds. The wavelengths it absorbs must match the length of the bonds limiting what energy will will disappear from the energy field. Other wavelengths will be reflected or transmitted (gamma radiation will penetrate objects until absorbed by an atom) not removing that energy from the radiated field. When CO2, O2, N2, or argon are exposed to longer IR wavelengths it is absorbed by increases in their kinetic energy which then increases the IR energy radiated by the motion of the molecule. (All motion creates a disturbance in the electromagnetic field which is why all matter above absolute 0 radiate energy.). This absorption is a form of transmission of energy not absorption by the matter.
When the energy exceeds the bond strength, the molecule breaks. In the upper atmosphere when the UV energy being absorbed by an O2 molecule has enough amplitude to break the bond it creates oxygen atoms. The same breaking will occur from non absorbed IR energy when the collision between molecules has enough energy to break the molecule (492,000joules/mole). All matter absorbs radiated energy but only particular wavelengths of that radiated energy become internal energy.
Herb
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks is BANNED for repeated violations of personal attacks against others despite being warned not to do that a few times and for arguing with the Administrator in public over the warnings he received.
Now that he is gone request that everyone else not to make personal attacks the focus should be on the comments posted here in the blog.
Reply
MattH
| #
And why has my comment been removed?
(Because it isn’t part of the topic, did you read my reply on the post you published that is currently unapproved) SUNMOD
Reply
MattH
| #
No, I have not read any reply you posted to my exercise in democratic free speech.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
I had not heard or read the term “democratic free speech” so I did a literature search and found this: “Free speech and expression is the lifeblood of democracy, facilitating open debate, the proper consideration of diverse interests and perspectives, and the negotiation and compromise necessary for consensual policy decisions.”
Debate to me, in the context of what I claim to understand implies there is no wrong. I have read long ago that it is a criminal act to scream “Fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Do you believe this a violation of democratic free speech?
I believe there is right and wrong in SCIENCE and while we can debate what ideas arer ight but we can absolutely absolutely observe that some proposed scientific ideas are wrong. Like does the Earth stand still or does it revolve about a fix axis? Or which came firs; the chicken or the egg?
Since we observe an egg must be incubated for a little chicken to hatch. It must be concluded that the chicken can first because if there were no bird to incubate the egg which the bird had to have laid. About this common observation and reasoning there can be NO debate.
And your claim to ‘democratic free speech implies there is no WRONG.
Have a good day
Have a good day
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Kooks
Yeah that is what i posted to Jerry i my mumbled up way, the energy density gradient of the energy emitted and the flow of heat only going one way hot to cold.
Just because the full spectrum of all wavelengths contained in the resident energy of an object or environ are emitted in all directions that all those wavelengths are acting as heat in the receiving matter/s for a net heat transfer………….. its the intensity not volume that matters, and they can use all big words and equations they like, but what they will never do is convince me that an ice cube next to a candle flame is transfering heat to that candle flame, because it isn’t.
They desperately need that ice cube to be transferring heat to the flame for their nonsense to have any validity.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
You confuse heat with energy. Energy flows from higher to lower, not mass. What energy is absorbed and radiated by an object is determined by the structure of the object. If you burn a log in a fireplace it will burn at a certain wavelength (temperature). If you put another identical log on the fire it will produce more heat, not a higher temperature.
You believe water in the atmosphere is a molecule (gas). When over the ocean does the gas molecule have more kinetic energy than the liquid molecule? Which way does the energy flow?
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
GA:
. . . they will never convince me that an ice cube next to a candle flame is transfering heat to that candle flame, because it isn’t.
JMcG:
It is.
GA:
They desperately need that ice cube to be transferring heat to the flame for their nonsense to have any validity.
JMcG:
Ice does not bring coldness it brings absence of hotness. In objective reality coldness does not exist. What does exist is absence of energy flow. Compared to a flame ice is absent of energy flow (heat). However, in comparison to absolute zero ice is hot.
Being on the cutting edge of a scientific discipline has been, in my experience, greatly facilitated by the realization that humans are deeply delusional and therefore deeply disinclined to maintain an objective perspective.
James McGinn / Genius
All of These Things That Make Us Human
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/All-of-These-Things-That-Make-Us-Human-e2cfu49
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You begin with the jet stream which has been seldom mentioned here at PSI. AndI admit I do not have the knowledge to question anything you wrote. I am watching forball today and tomorrow but I study what you wrote to see if I can learn anything new.
And reeders, be advised that James has been working years, like a good scientist to explain the common, even if somewhat rare, violent storms which occur . Tornados might be considered common and are well observed but I do not know if anyone has cleaned to mechanistic to explanation them in detail.
Hopefully, PSI editors will encourage James to submit and article or two.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I have a few experiences which I consider somewhat unique and which I cannot begin to explain (understand). One begins with the fact that many people in our community has cisterns in their basements to store the ‘soft’ rainwater falling on the roof because the natural well water was hard (dissolved minerals which precipitated soap molecules). The basement cisterns had 8in thick concrete walls. When I was about 3+ lighting struck our home and traveled along the eave troughs and down the galvanized pipe into the cistern and blew the 8in concrete across the basement where it broke glass jars of canned food. According to my parents, this blast awoke them and they looked out a window to see if the barn had be hit. It hadn’t; so they went back to sleep. But in the morning when my father went to the basement to separate the milk; he discovered the damage and a foot plus water in the basement. Can you explain this? I certainly cannot not.
Have a good day
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Herb you started your last post to me above with a complete strawman of your own construction please don’t do that again, it is why people like kooks get so frustrated with people like you who do it quite deliberately, and your intent is totally dishonest
You then demolished your own strawman.
None of what you posted had anything whatsoever to do with what i posted.
What i post was distinguishing heat energy wavelengths in the pulse/flux that have a physical real world effect on the matter receiving them whatever the receiving matters emissivity maybe, from the weak wavelengths that are contained in the flux that have zero physical effect on said receiving matter, but are still called heat and part of a net flow of heat, when they are just part of a net flow of energy between objects or environs, they contribute nothing physical at all.
Reply
herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
I don’t see your straw man. I was pointing out that heat and energy are not the same, yet you treat them the same. In radiated energy objects do not transfer mass, only energy. Wavelengths that do not match the object have no effect on it. They pass through it (transparent) or are reflected by it. Absorbed wavelengths, that have less amplitude, do not add energy to the object but absorb energy from it. Waves have three properties: frequency, wavelength, and amplitude. The wavelength determines the temperature but the amplitude determines how much energy the wave has. Once the amplitude matches the amplitude of the energy of an object, that object is in equilibrium and gains no more energy.
You have the wrong definition of heat. The empty space between the Earth and sun contains no matter and has no temperature but it contains the energy that heats the Earth. It is the interaction of matter and energy that creates heat or kinetic energy.
Herb
Reply