|
Post by icefisher on Feb 29, 2012 1:03:21 GMT
The point was you were whining about the earth not cooling and therefore there is no effect to be detected by Magellan.
I pointed out once again that you lack the knowledge of basic physical principals that you need to understand this topic.
And once again you have totally avoided that to focus on your celibration of Magellan who for you has proven that ideas considered to be facts for the last 300 years are invalid[/size]
As for Magellans experiment I have given reasons why i think it is not working for him. Peculiarly he does not like what i say. and most peculiarly he says i am a crook. He has the same kind of potty mouth as you have.[/color]
Of course you call yourself a scientist yet you have a religious belief in how energy is radiated in all directions randomly.
As I have endless pointed out to you it may operate off a massless space plasma running instead towards colder places one. Or maybe convection and conduction is as robust as radiation and perfectly capable of replacing it even in a low conductivity object via the use of convection.
But no its a religious ideal of yours that Magellan's experiment is wrong even in the presence of you completely failing to offer an alternative experiment with any modicum of control effort over what is being tested to demonstrate Magellan should have found something.
You have lost every opportunity to say Magellan missed it by claiming it to be always there.
So lacking any argument you resort to ad hominems. I am blowing the whistle on this game and you forfeit for using that fallacy.
If in fact you know it was proven 300 years ago you should be able to produce the proof unless you are lying.
Thats the entire force of your argument. So if its true your job is incredibly easy you just need to provide the the proof that was already done for you 300 years ago or you slink away branded as a liar.
I know how this going to turn out. The RC scientists couldn't decide how to respond to G&T but at least they didn't make some howling lie up. Nobody simply screamed bbbbuuuuttttt buttttt it was proven 300 years ago! What an empty vacuous statement! Its like saying I read it in the Bible and I believe every word of it down to my tippy tippy toes.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 29, 2012 6:39:19 GMT
The point was you were whining about the earth not cooling and therefore there is no effect to be detected by Magellan.
I pointed out once again that you lack the knowledge of basic physical principals that you need to understand this topic.
And once again you have totally avoided that to focus on your celibration of Magellan who for you has proven that ideas considered to be facts for the last 300 years are invalid [/size] As for Magellans experiment I have given reasons why i think it is not working for him. Peculiarly he does not like what i say. and most peculiarly he says i am a crook. He has the same kind of potty mouth as you have.[/color] Of course you call yourself a scientist yet you have a religious belief in how energy is radiated in all directions randomly. As I have endless pointed out to you it may operate off a massless space plasma running instead towards colder places one. Or maybe convection and conduction is as robust as radiation and perfectly capable of replacing it even in a low conductivity object via the use of convection. But no its a religious ideal of yours that Magellan's experiment is wrong even in the presence of you completely failing to offer an alternative experiment with any modicum of control effort over what is being tested to demonstrate Magellan should have found something. You have lost every opportunity to say Magellan missed it by claiming it to be always there. So lacking any argument you resort to ad hominems. I am blowing the whistle on this game and you forfeit for using that fallacy. If in fact you know it was proven 300 years ago you should be able to produce the proof unless you are lying. Thats the entire force of your argument. So if its true your job is incredibly easy you just need to provide the the proof that was already done for you 300 years ago or you slink away branded as a liar. I know how this going to turn out. The RC scientists couldn't decide how to respond to G&T but at least they didn't make some howling lie up. Nobody simply screamed bbbbuuuuttttt buttttt it was proven 300 years ago! What an empty vacuous statement! Its like saying I read it in the Bible and I believe every word of it down to my tippy tippy toes. [/quote] You began this conversation with ad hominens that Steve was obfuscating And I quickly became victim to the same potty mouth.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 29, 2012 7:04:47 GMT
You began this conversation with ad hominens that Steve was obfuscating
And I quickly became victim to the same potty mouth.
I wouldn't want to accuse you of obfuscating Iceskater as I would not want to damage you.
But the request is for a link to the 300 year old science you offered in sole support for your position on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 29, 2012 8:49:38 GMT
You began this conversation with ad hominens that Steve was obfuscating
And I quickly became victim to the same potty mouth.
I wouldn't want to accuse you of obfuscating Iceskater as I would not want to damage you. But the request is for a link to the 300 year old science you offered in sole support for your position on this matter. I already provided a number of experiments in support of my position And earlier you accused me of being a liar for my efforts. I have spent almost a month attempting to show you that your ideas are not supported by what human beings call Science. The point was you were whining about the earth not coolingIt would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics for energy to be emitted from the Earth without the source of the emissions becoming colder. Solar radiation is continually reaching the surface of the Earth where it is absorbed to cause heating. The continual emissions will cause cooling or be a violation of the known laws of physics.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 29, 2012 14:37:39 GMT
You began this conversation with ad hominens that Steve was obfuscating
And I quickly became victim to the same potty mouth.
I wouldn't want to accuse you of obfuscating Iceskater as I would not want to damage you. But the request is for a link to the 300 year old science you offered in sole support for your position on this matter. I already provided a number of experiments in support of my position And earlier you accused me of being a liar for my efforts. I have spent almost a month attempting to show you that your ideas are not supported by what human beings call Science. The point was you were whining about the earth not coolingIt would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics for energy to be emitted from the Earth without the source of the emissions becoming colder. Solar radiation is continually reaching the surface of the Earth where it is absorbed to cause heating. The continual emissions will cause cooling or be a violation of the known laws of physics. Solar radiation is continually reaching the surface of the Earth where it is absorbed to cause heating. And it is convection that rules the day at the surface. By night it is by radiation when solar radiation is not continually reaching the surface. Funny how everything is said to be "basic physics" when it comes to climate science, yet whether or not a rain droplet freezes from the inside out or outside in was never proven by experimentation, just assumed to be known by "basic physics". The prevailing view was _____________ (you fill in the blank).
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 29, 2012 15:02:09 GMT
I already provided a number of experiments in support of my position And earlier you accused me of being a liar for my efforts. I have spent almost a month attempting to show you that your ideas are not supported by what human beings call Science. The point was you were whining about the earth not coolingIt would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics for energy to be emitted from the Earth without the source of the emissions becoming colder. Solar radiation is continually reaching the surface of the Earth where it is absorbed to cause heating. The continual emissions will cause cooling or be a violation of the known laws of physics. Solar radiation is continually reaching the surface of the Earth where it is absorbed to cause heating. And it is convection that rules the day at the surface. By night it is by radiation when solar radiation is not continually reaching the surface. Funny how everything is said to be "basic physics" when it comes to climate science, yet whether or not a rain droplet freezes from the inside out or outside in was never proven by experimentation, just assumed to be known by "basic physics". The prevailing view was _____________ (you fill in the blank). Magellan I am not defending climate models Convection or not, radiation is more powerful when it is warmer by day and the only way to get rid of the suns heat is by radiation.It is basic physics
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 29, 2012 17:23:49 GMT
Solar radiation is continually reaching the surface of the Earth where it is absorbed to cause heating. And it is convection that rules the day at the surface. By night it is by radiation when solar radiation is not continually reaching the surface. Funny how everything is said to be "basic physics" when it comes to climate science, yet whether or not a rain droplet freezes from the inside out or outside in was never proven by experimentation, just assumed to be known by "basic physics". The prevailing view was _____________ (you fill in the blank). Magellan I am not defending climate models Convection or not, radiation is more powerful when it is warmer by day and the only way to get rid of the suns heat is by radiation.It is basic physics I am not defending climate models Did I mention climate models? the only way to get rid of the suns heat is by radiation.
Another red herring, straight out of the talking points manual. That would imply heat is being "trapped" somewhere between the surface and space preventing it from leaving the planet. Where would that be? What gets the heat up to where radiation becomes the dominant process? sorry, I forgot you don't like to be questioned, just to lecture. The rain droplet issue is important, but I can see you don't want to touch it even though you claim to be a man of science, far superior to unintelligent idiots like me.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 29, 2012 17:49:46 GMT
Magellan I am not defending climate models Convection or not, radiation is more powerful when it is warmer by day and the only way to get rid of the suns heat is by radiation.It is basic physics I am not defending climate models Did I mention climate models? the only way to get rid of the suns heat is by radiation.
Another red herring, straight out of the talking points manual. That would imply heat is being "trapped" somewhere between the surface and space preventing it from leaving the planet. Where would that be? What gets the heat up to where radiation becomes the dominant process? sorry, I forgot you don't like to be questioned, just to lecture. The rain droplet issue is important, but I can see you don't want to touch it even though you claim to be a man of science, far superior to unintelligent idiots like me. I dont do red herrings and neither have i read the talking points manual. That would imply heat is being "trapped" somewhere between the surface and space preventing it from leaving the planet. Where would that be? What gets the heat up to where radiation becomes the dominant process? You need to expand on that a bit so i know what you are thinking when you say that. When radiation is emitted the atom or molecule must cool. Heat cannot leave the Earth system as such. Heat is matter in motion. When radiation leaves the earth system, the matter is moving less rapidly. Any object hotter than absolute zero begins emitting radiation, where emission is a cooling process. Radiation is the only way that the earth system can cool when heated by the sun. If convection is enormously important then the heat is in the atmosphere and it will cool and backradiation will arrive at the surface. It is unfortunately just basic physics
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 29, 2012 18:40:26 GMT
Here is an experiment showing a hot block of concrete rising in temperature at the surface when it is warming a nearby cooler block where this cooler block is warmer than the environment.
The first three minutes is just to demonstrate the hot block is fairly stable and is slowly cooling. The warm block is then moved on and off a few times to show the effect. Unfortunately one thermocouple got pulled off during the oven heating
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 1, 2012 2:45:57 GMT
I wouldn't want to accuse you of obfuscating Iceskater as I would not want to damage you.
But the request is for a link to the 300 year old science you offered in sole support for your position on this matter. I already provided a number of experiments in support of my position And earlier you accused me of being a liar for my efforts. [/size] [/color][/quote] Wah, wah, a-Watusi. So you admit your argument was an appeal to the fallacy of a lie! There is no 300 year science that establishes your radiation if all directions and uphill toward a source of hotter emissions! I have spent almost a month attempting to show you that your ideas are not supported by what human beings call Science.Indeed! By appealing to a lie!! A lie that the science on this had been done and you knew how it worked. Be aware I am comfortable with a back radiation model and I have said repeatedly that its a real possibility and basically irrelevant. I realize you have failed miserably in wrapping your mind around this concept of irrelevancy and so you seem to have to invent strawmen to represent a target for your criticisms I advance. So why not instead of your proselytizing a theory you have no scientific evidence. This is proven by you being unable to back up your claims that your view has been established in science. So we should move beyond that and begin to address why I think it might be irrelevant however it works. Lets start slowly. In the interest of time I am going to offer a few premises. But I request these be disputed in the exact order if any dispute exists. That way we can argue further steps down the line without a lot of backtracking. 1. A surface of an object that does not have a source of heat from above it will radiate heat at a maximum rate of conduction of heat through the object (i.e. it cannot radiate from within the object thus heat needs to be supplied to the radiating surface by conduction) 2. Add some equal or warmer non-radiative gases to the atmosphere above the surface. Surface radiation will increase from 1) more energy will be available to the surface and surface radiation will increase from heat absorbed by the surface; 2) heat will be conducted into the object and the object will warm (this energy will not be available to radiate from the surface) 3. Add some colder non-radiative gases to the atmosphere above the surface and the amount of energy available to radiation will decrease due to conduction. 4. Add some warmer radiative gases in the atmosphere above the surface and radiation can increase.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 1, 2012 5:45:09 GMT
I already provided a number of experiments in support of my position And earlier you accused me of being a liar for my efforts. [/size] [/color][/quote] Wah, wah, a-Watusi. So you admit your argument was an appeal to the fallacy of a lie! There is no 300 year science that establishes your radiation if all directions and uphill toward a source of hotter emissions! I have spent almost a month attempting to show you that your ideas are not supported by what human beings call Science.Indeed! By appealing to a lie!! A lie that the science on this had been done and you knew how it worked. Be aware I am comfortable with a back radiation model and I have said repeatedly that its a real possibility and basically irrelevant. I realize you have failed miserably in wrapping your mind around this concept of irrelevancy and so you seem to have to invent strawmen to represent a target for your criticisms I advance. So why not instead of your proselytizing a theory you have no scientific evidence. This is proven by you being unable to back up your claims that your view has been established in science. So we should move beyond that and begin to address why I think it might be irrelevant however it works. Lets start slowly. In the interest of time I am going to offer a few premises. But I request these be disputed in the exact order if any dispute exists. That way we can argue further steps down the line without a lot of backtracking. 1. A surface of an object that does not have a source of heat from above it will radiate heat at a maximum rate of conduction of heat through the object (i.e. it cannot radiate from within the object thus heat needs to be supplied to the radiating surface by conduction) 2. Add some equal or warmer non-radiative gases to the atmosphere above the surface. Surface radiation will increase from 1) more energy will be available to the surface and surface radiation will increase from heat absorbed by the surface; 2) heat will be conducted into the object and the object will warm (this energy will not be available to radiate from the surface) 3. Add some colder non-radiative gases to the atmosphere above the surface and the amount of energy available to radiation will decrease due to conduction. 4. Add some warmer radiative gases in the atmosphere above the surface and radiation can increase. [/quote] The thread is called backradiation - this has to end. In 1791, Pierre Prevost was able to say that objects in space exchange heat equally in what is now known as Prevost Exchange principle. I only mentioned three hundred years ago about 3-7 days ago. About 2-3 weeks ago i started mentioning 150 years ago. A month ago i mentioned the ancients knew how to build a frost pit in dry areas even when the air was moderately warm. My beginning point was that back-radiation is an established idea and is not something that was dreamed up overnight by AGW climate change crackpots. Repeatedly however, you and Magellan use the same tactic of associating climate alarmism with your ideas that backradiation does not exist or is trivial. And all attempts by me to distance myself from AGW alarmism have failed to stop the abuse towards me personally and therefore by implication against Science in general. You cannot call me a liar repeatedly and then imagine you can make requests of me. I have been trying to help you. You said that nobody could invalidate your thinking and you had a theory. And dispite your thinking being constantly invalidated you refuse to concede anything at all and just continue with the abuse. If you want to be abusive towards people you should do that with somebody else. What you are doing with me is not normal behaviour and via the internet i cannot help you any further.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 1, 2012 13:16:25 GMT
Wah, wah, a-Watusi. So you admit your argument was an appeal to the fallacy of a lie! There is no 300 year science that establishes your radiation if all directions and uphill toward a source of hotter emissions! I have spent almost a month attempting to show you that your ideas are not supported by what human beings call Science.Indeed! By appealing to a lie!! A lie that the science on this had been done and you knew how it worked. Be aware I am comfortable with a back radiation model and I have said repeatedly that its a real possibility and basically irrelevant. I realize you have failed miserably in wrapping your mind around this concept of irrelevancy and so you seem to have to invent strawmen to represent a target for your criticisms I advance. So why not instead of your proselytizing a theory you have no scientific evidence. This is proven by you being unable to back up your claims that your view has been established in science. So we should move beyond that and begin to address why I think it might be irrelevant however it works. Lets start slowly. In the interest of time I am going to offer a few premises. But I request these be disputed in the exact order if any dispute exists. That way we can argue further steps down the line without a lot of backtracking. 1. A surface of an object that does not have a source of heat from above it will radiate heat at a maximum rate of conduction of heat through the object (i.e. it cannot radiate from within the object thus heat needs to be supplied to the radiating surface by conduction) 2. Add some equal or warmer non-radiative gases to the atmosphere above the surface. Surface radiation will increase from 1) more energy will be available to the surface and surface radiation will increase from heat absorbed by the surface; 2) heat will be conducted into the object and the object will warm (this energy will not be available to radiate from the surface) 3. Add some colder non-radiative gases to the atmosphere above the surface and the amount of energy available to radiation will decrease due to conduction. 4. Add some warmer radiative gases in the atmosphere above the surface and radiation can increase. The thread is called backradiation - this has to end.
In 1791, Pierre Prevost was able to say that objects in space exchange heat equally in what is now known as Prevost Exchange principle.Equilibrium is at the heart of my theory Iceskater. It is you that is trying to twist equilibrium to a state of heightened difference in temperature than currently exists with the same solar input but instead via the emission of a super insulating trace gas into the atmosphere. So one could rightly say it is you who is violating 300 year old known physics if this is all you have to offer on that. I only mentioned three hundred years ago about 3-7 days ago. About 2-3 weeks ago i started mentioning 150 years ago. Only started getting desperate 3 to 7 days ago huh? A month ago i mentioned the ancients knew how to build a frost pit in dry areas even when the air was moderately warm.
Showing a difference between the surface and the Stevenson screens? I think that has been a consistent claim of mine. My beginning point was that back-radiation is an established idea and is not something that was dreamed up overnight by AGW climate change crackpots. I know! They dreamed it up sometime ago. But I wasn't talking about when it was dreamed up. I was talking about when it was established into first principles of physics and how it might have been done, besides dreaming it up. Repeatedly however, you and Magellan use the same tactic of associating climate alarmism with your ideas that backradiation does not exist or is trivial. And all attempts by me to distance myself from AGW alarmism have failed to stop the abuse towards me personally and therefore by implication against Science in general. In your view abuse is calling you out for proselytizing a theory you still have yet offered zero scientific support for beyond it being a religious view strongly held by scientists. Its a lie to say its an established principle in science when it is not. The truth hurts no doubt but sometimes when somebody is flogging you as a moron for not believing it its time to call them on it. Hey what can I say Iceskater. Your claim it is science yet you cannot back up that claim. Magellan is offering proof but proof of the non-existence of something can try your patience. You cannot call me a liar repeatedly and then imagine you can make requests of me.This is supposed to be a science debate Iceskater. Not fairy tale time. You called me a moron for not believing a science principle that was established 300 years ago. I called you a liar for claiming it to be an established science principle. It seems I was right. Who was being abusive? I have been trying to help you. You said that nobody could invalidate your thinking and you had a theory. And dispite your thinking being constantly invalidated you refuse to concede anything at all and just continue with the abuse.Invalidated? When did that happen? I called for you to back up your basic science claim on this and you have been impotent. If you want to be abusive towards people you should do that with somebody else.Maybe you should discontinue calling people stupid and morons for not believing in backradiation. Or calling them stupid and morons for not accepting proof when you have provided none. . . .like your experiment purporting to show a warming effect from backradiation that instead showed an object with a warmer side cooling faster. What you are doing with me is not normal behaviour and via the internet i cannot help you any further. Being disagreeable to your quasi religious-scientific theory is not normal behavior when you try so hard to proselytize it? Typical reaction of a true believer. If you refuse to focus on established science principles in favor of proselytizing unestablished principles we can obviously get nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 1, 2012 14:47:58 GMT
Lets start slowly and see if backradiation is a relevant theory.
In the interest of time I am going to offer a few premises.
But I request these be disputed in the exact order if any dispute exists. That way we can argue further steps down the line without a lot of backtracking.
1. A surface of an object that does not have a source of heat from above it will radiate heat at a maximum rate of conduction of heat through the object (i.e. it cannot radiate from within the object thus heat needs to be supplied to the radiating surface by conduction)
2. Add some equal or warmer non-radiative gases to the atmosphere above the surface. Surface radiation will increase from 1) more energy will be available to the surface and surface radiation will increase from heat absorbed by the surface; 2) heat will be conducted into the object and the object will warm (this energy will not be available to radiate from the surface)
3. Add some colder non-radiative gases to the atmosphere above the surface and the amount of energy available to radiation will decrease due to conduction.
4. Add some warmer radiative gases in the atmosphere above the surface and radiation can increase.
Anybody care to comment on any of the above?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 1, 2012 14:57:59 GMT
Wah, wah, a-Watusi. So you admit your argument was an appeal to the fallacy of a lie! There is no 300 year science that establishes your radiation if all directions and uphill toward a source of hotter emissions! I have spent almost a month attempting to show you that your ideas are not supported by what human beings call Science.Indeed! By appealing to a lie!! A lie that the science on this had been done and you knew how it worked. Be aware I am comfortable with a back radiation model and I have said repeatedly that its a real possibility and basically irrelevant. I realize you have failed miserably in wrapping your mind around this concept of irrelevancy and so you seem to have to invent strawmen to represent a target for your criticisms I advance. So why not instead of your proselytizing a theory you have no scientific evidence. This is proven by you being unable to back up your claims that your view has been established in science. So we should move beyond that and begin to address why I think it might be irrelevant however it works. Lets start slowly. In the interest of time I am going to offer a few premises. But I request these be disputed in the exact order if any dispute exists. That way we can argue further steps down the line without a lot of backtracking. 1. A surface of an object that does not have a source of heat from above it will radiate heat at a maximum rate of conduction of heat through the object (i.e. it cannot radiate from within the object thus heat needs to be supplied to the radiating surface by conduction) 2. Add some equal or warmer non-radiative gases to the atmosphere above the surface. Surface radiation will increase from 1) more energy will be available to the surface and surface radiation will increase from heat absorbed by the surface; 2) heat will be conducted into the object and the object will warm (this energy will not be available to radiate from the surface) 3. Add some colder non-radiative gases to the atmosphere above the surface and the amount of energy available to radiation will decrease due to conduction. 4. Add some warmer radiative gases in the atmosphere above the surface and radiation can increase. The thread is called backradiation - this has to end.
In 1791, Pierre Prevost was able to say that objects in space exchange heat equally in what is now known as Prevost Exchange principle.Equilibrium is at the heart of my theory Iceskater. It is you that is trying to twist equilibrium to a state of heightened difference in temperature than currently exists with the same solar input but instead via the emission of a super insulating trace gas into the atmosphere. So one could rightly say it is you who is violating 300 year old known physics if this is all you have to offer on that. I only mentioned three hundred years ago about 3-7 days ago. About 2-3 weeks ago i started mentioning 150 years ago. Only started getting desperate 3 to 7 days ago huh? A month ago i mentioned the ancients knew how to build a frost pit in dry areas even when the air was moderately warm.
Showing a difference between the surface and the Stevenson screens? I think that has been a consistent claim of mine. My beginning point was that back-radiation is an established idea and is not something that was dreamed up overnight by AGW climate change crackpots. I know! They dreamed it up sometime ago. But I wasn't talking about when it was dreamed up. I was talking about when it was established into first principles of physics and how it might have been done, besides dreaming it up. Repeatedly however, you and Magellan use the same tactic of associating climate alarmism with your ideas that backradiation does not exist or is trivial. And all attempts by me to distance myself from AGW alarmism have failed to stop the abuse towards me personally and therefore by implication against Science in general. In your view abuse is calling you out for proselytizing a theory you still have yet offered zero scientific support for beyond it being a religious view strongly held by scientists. Its a lie to say its an established principle in science when it is not. The truth hurts no doubt but sometimes when somebody is flogging you as a moron for not believing it its time to call them on it. Hey what can I say Iceskater. Your claim it is science yet you cannot back up that claim. Magellan is offering proof but proof of the non-existence of something can try your patience. You cannot call me a liar repeatedly and then imagine you can make requests of me.This is supposed to be a science debate Iceskater. Not fairy tale time. You called me a moron for not believing a science principle that was established 300 years ago. I called you a liar for claiming it to be an established science principle. It seems I was right. Who was being abusive? I have been trying to help you. You said that nobody could invalidate your thinking and you had a theory. And dispite your thinking being constantly invalidated you refuse to concede anything at all and just continue with the abuse.Invalidated? When did that happen? I called for you to back up your basic science claim on this and you have been impotent. If you want to be abusive towards people you should do that with somebody else.Maybe you should discontinue calling people stupid and morons for not believing in backradiation. Or calling them stupid and morons for not accepting proof when you have provided none. . . .like your experiment purporting to show a warming effect from backradiation that instead showed an object with a warmer side cooling faster. What you are doing with me is not normal behaviour and via the internet i cannot help you any further. Being disagreeable to your quasi religious-scientific theory is not normal behavior when you try so hard to proselytize it? Typical reaction of a true believer. If you refuse to focus on established science principles in favor of proselytizing unestablished principles we can obviously get nowhere. I said you were a scientific ignoramous. Which could mean you are the genius and what we know as established scientific principles is totally wrong. The establishment view is that emission cools atoms and molecules and all matter is continually cooling when heated no matter if the temperature rises or falls. The scientific view may well be a religious view compared to your correct one but you need to differentiate your ideas from what is known currently as established science. Instead you obfuscate by pretending it is only climate scientists you are disgreeing with. I called you stupid and moronic because of these kinds of endless inconsistancies in your arguments and where importantly also you appear totally clueless to describe simple ideas correctly such as the Zeroth law. And i called you dishonest because you refuse to discuss why you are using the terms incorrectly. Instead you just change the subject and introduce yet more obfuscation where it is impossible to get you to focus on your errors. like your experiment purporting to show a warming effect from backradiation that instead showed an object with a warmer side cooling faster.The experiment simply shows the heat losses to be expected via net radiation loss curves The object cools more slowly on the side next to a warmer surface than absolute zero Just basic physics which once again you are disputing. In one breath you say you dont dispute the heat loss curves and in the next when i demonstrate the heat loss curves you tell me I am a liar. There is no chance of me discussing your ideas with you while you do this sort of thing Only started getting desperate 3 to 7 days ago huh?No it was desperate weeks ago but i imagined we might yet make progress and you might actually learn something from me. Magellan is offering proofMagellan just proved that it can be difficult to prove the known laws of physics - particularly if you do not understand what you are attempting to prove.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 1, 2012 15:52:35 GMT
I said you were a scientific ignoramous. Which could mean you are the genius and what we know as established scientific principles is totally wrong.
The establishment view is that emission cools atoms and molecules and all matter is continually cooling when heated no matter if the temperature rises or falls.
The scientific view may well be a religious view compared to your correct one but you need to differentiate your ideas from what is known currently as established science.
You sort of have that backwards. What is in fact true is you are an ignoramous of the English language. Things are not continually cooling while they are being heated. They may be radiating and conducting while being heated. Cooling and warming are strictly words related to heat. Things conduct and radiate when both cooling and when warming. But cooling and warming by definition does not occur simultaneously.
Instead you obfuscate by pretending it is only climate scientists you are disgreeing with.
I called you stupid and moronic because of these kinds of endless inconsistancies in your arguments and where importantly also you appear totally clueless to describe simple ideas correctly such as the Zeroth law.
You have yet to prove anything in this forum beyond your being a moron about the English language.
And i called you dishonest because you refuse to discuss why you are using the terms incorrectly. Instead you just change the subject and introduce yet more obfuscation where it is impossible to get you to focus on your errors.
If I can't convince you even with a dictionary what can I say?
like your experiment purporting to show a warming effect from backradiation that instead showed an object with a warmer side cooling faster.
The experiment simply shows the heat losses to be expected via net radiation loss curves.
Thats correct they say zero about backradiation. Consistency with a backradiation model does not establish a backradiation model. Not when other possible explanations of the effect exist. The issue is whether back radiation causes warming, in particular, whether it causes warming when a system is fluctuating around a single number, possibly dictated by something entirely different.
The object cools more slowly on the side next to a warmer surface than absolute zero
Just basic physics
Basic physics establishes slower cooling by radiation alone but does not establish a warmer temperature of the surface as a result . . . .not when other modes of cooling exist.
In one breath you say you dont dispute the heat loss curves and in the next when i demonstrate the heat loss curves you tell me I am a liar.
Your heat curves might actually work in outer space. But slowing does not need to be via backradiation. It could be due to a decrease in relative potential.
There is no chance of me discussing your ideas with you while you do this sort of thing.
Typical bigot. You insist I join your faith before you will discuss anything.
Only started getting desperate 3 to 7 days ago huh?
No it was desperate weeks ago but i imagined we might yet make progress and you might actually learn something from me.
So said the proselytizer who knocked on my door. You are just stuck on square one and refuse to look beyond it for answers despite knowing you can find no science to back up your point of view.
|
|