|
Post by numerouno on Mar 13, 2012 0:41:59 GMT
I think I indicated Mr Iceskater's unfortunate state of mental health on this forum some time ago, soon after our mutual larger-than-life "icebreaker break how deep an ice" saga. I made a sort of ad hoc diagnostics as well, but that thread was, I think, the Arctic one that got acccidentally deleted by our host the board operator.
We can I hope agree that some actual remedies would be in place concerning mr Iceskater's mental health and balance that would override his communicating here.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 13, 2012 3:29:49 GMT
"If the theories of the Universe are true then it could be true that the temperature of all of the matter in the universe is on average cooling." Iceskater........you got it. Because of molecular motion, which expends energy, all matter is cooling. When a mass absorbs energy, it warms, as the other object cools. I don't know how much more simply I can explain this. The rate of cooling changes when an object warms. However, the central tenant of radiation laws are that ALL matter emits radiation.....all matter epxends energy, and by this expense of energy it is cooling. The rate of cooling is what can change......but not the central law of energy. So you have a revolutionary new theory that molecular motion expends energy? Sounds a bit like the Icefisher plasma communication and the Magellan energy sucking theories.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 13, 2012 16:07:49 GMT
"If the theories of the Universe are true then it could be true that the temperature of all of the matter in the universe is on average cooling." Iceskater........you got it. Because of molecular motion, which expends energy, all matter is cooling. When a mass absorbs energy, it warms, as the other object cools. I don't know how much more simply I can explain this. The rate of cooling changes when an object warms. However, the central tenant of radiation laws are that ALL matter emits radiation.....all matter epxends energy, and by this expense of energy it is cooling. The rate of cooling is what can change......but not the central law of energy. So you have a revolutionary new theory that molecular motion expends energy? Sounds a bit like the Icefisher plasma communication and the Magellan energy sucking theories. That coming from someone who thinks putting a blanket on a dead body will raise its temperature.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 13, 2012 16:46:45 GMT
So you have a revolutionary new theory that molecular motion expends energy? Sounds a bit like the Icefisher plasma communication and the Magellan energy sucking theories. That coming from someone who thinks putting a blanket on a dead body will raise its temperature. That was just one of your lies. Can you really not tell the difference between your lies and reality? Or is it just part of the game you like playing where wasting peoples time is your idea of fun?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 13, 2012 17:54:42 GMT
That coming from someone who thinks putting a blanket on a dead body will raise its temperature. That was just one of your lies. Can you really not tell the difference between your lies and reality? Or is it just part of the game you like playing where wasting peoples time is your idea of fun? Typical obfuscation from one who has proven incompetent in demonstrating via experiment or reference to a science experiment establishing what you believe to be true. Puts you squarely in with the Pope counseling Galileo to not teach against the Ptolemaic theory. Its amazing to me they are giving science degrees to people unable to differentiate between theory and fact. Its like giving degrees to mathematicians who cannot add 2+2 without a computer. We even have a substantial element of such people advocating punishment for deniers. Its a scary thought how close we are to traveling down a road of ruin led by some despot with an inability to differentiate between theory and reality.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 13, 2012 20:51:51 GMT
That was just one of your lies. Can you really not tell the difference between your lies and reality? Or is it just part of the game you like playing where wasting peoples time is your idea of fun? Typical obfuscation from one who has proven incompetent in demonstrating via experiment or reference to a science experiment establishing what you believe to be true. Puts you squarely in with the Pope counseling Galileo to not teach against the Ptolemaic theory. Its amazing to me they are giving science degrees to people unable to differentiate between theory and fact. Its like giving degrees to mathematicians who cannot add 2+2 without a computer. We even have a substantial element of such people advocating punishment for deniers. Its a scary thought how close we are to traveling down a road of ruin led by some despot with an inability to differentiate between theory and reality. Funny how you, Magellan and Sigurdur are exchanging blows with me by saying silly things over and over. As you probably already know, I found a proof that a hotter object can absorb radiation from a colder object in the 1871 'theory of heat' by James Clerk Maxwell, and I had already worked out that such a proof was possible - I just could not find a reference for it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 13, 2012 21:59:16 GMT
Typical obfuscation from one who has proven incompetent in demonstrating via experiment or reference to a science experiment establishing what you believe to be true. Puts you squarely in with the Pope counseling Galileo to not teach against the Ptolemaic theory. Its amazing to me they are giving science degrees to people unable to differentiate between theory and fact. Its like giving degrees to mathematicians who cannot add 2+2 without a computer. We even have a substantial element of such people advocating punishment for deniers. Its a scary thought how close we are to traveling down a road of ruin led by some despot with an inability to differentiate between theory and reality. Funny how you, Magellan and Sigurdur are exchanging blows with me by saying silly things over and over. As you probably already know, I found a proof that a hotter object can absorb radiation from a colder object in the 1871 'theory of heat' by James Clerk Maxwell, and I had already worked out that such a proof was possible - I just could not find a reference for it. Can placing a blanket on a dead body cause its temperature to rise? Why did you delete all those posts and threads again?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 13, 2012 22:07:06 GMT
Funny how you, Magellan and Sigurdur are exchanging blows with me by saying silly things over and over. As you probably already know, I found a proof that a hotter object can absorb radiation from a colder object in the 1871 'theory of heat' by James Clerk Maxwell, and I had already worked out that such a proof was possible - I just could not find a reference for it. Can placing a blanket on a dead body cause its temperature to rise? Why did you delete all those posts and threads again? You seem forgetful. Steve answered that it was possible due to the heat of decomposition, and i deleted those posts because i could not cope with the disgusting behaviour of people who seem to enjoy calling other people liars and crooks when all they are doing is attempting to help others understand basic scientific ideas which are well established for 150 years or so. I got rid of the posts to cleanse myself of the contamination. How long are you going to persist being so silly?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 13, 2012 23:01:49 GMT
I got rid of the posts to cleanse myself of the contamination.
good job! cleaned the board right up!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 13, 2012 23:10:03 GMT
As you probably already know, I found a proof that a hotter object can absorb radiation from a colder object in the 1871 'theory of heat' by James Clerk Maxwell, and I had already worked out that such a proof was possible - I just could not find a reference for it.
I didn't see that in the link you provided.
1) I saw where sodium-vapour emits bright lines of yellow light when really hot.
2) I saw that when hotter than the limeball (which emits broad spectra light close to an emissivity of 1.0) the bright lines of light from the sodium-vapour the bright lines were still there. The only additional light in this experiment was spectra not absorbed from the lime ball outside the sodium-vapour spectral lines that are transmitting through without absorption. No description of the bright lines being brighter were given.
3) I saw that when the sodium-vapour was the same temperature as the limeball the spectra was the same as the lime ball with no brightening or darkening of the sodium-vapour spectral lines.
4) I saw that when the sodium-vapour was colder than the lime ball the spectra had dark bands in the region of the sodium-vapour spectral absorption lines.
So I have no idea where you saw a hotter object absorbing light from a colder object.
Perhaps you could give the precise paragraph where you saw that.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 13, 2012 23:41:20 GMT
Can placing a blanket on a dead body cause its temperature to rise? Why did you delete all those posts and threads again? You seem forgetful. Steve answered that it was possible due to the heat of decomposition, and i deleted those posts because i could not cope with the disgusting behaviour of people who seem to enjoy calling other people liars and crooks when all they are doing is attempting to help others understand basic scientific ideas which are well established for 150 years or so. I got rid of the posts to cleanse myself of the contamination. How long are you going to persist being so silly? Steve answered that it was possible due to the heat of decomposition And you thought that was a serious reply? Oh my. Ok then, forget the human body. How about a manikin, warmed to 98.6 degrees F, then placed outside in the cold at 50 F. Will the manikin get warmer if a blanket is placed around it?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 14, 2012 5:08:40 GMT
You seem forgetful. Steve answered that it was possible due to the heat of decomposition, and i deleted those posts because i could not cope with the disgusting behaviour of people who seem to enjoy calling other people liars and crooks when all they are doing is attempting to help others understand basic scientific ideas which are well established for 150 years or so. I got rid of the posts to cleanse myself of the contamination. How long are you going to persist being so silly? Steve answered that it was possible due to the heat of decomposition And you thought that was a serious reply? Oh my. Ok then, forget the human body. How about a manikin, warmed to 98.6 degrees F, then placed outside in the cold at 50 F. Will the manikin get warmer if a blanket is placed around it? As i have already demonstrated if an object is warmed and then placed in air, the surface is colder than the interior and therefore the interior heats the surface. When the blanket is placed around the object the surface layer will rise in temperature until the various heating and cooling forces are in balance. The same would apply to a recently deceased dead body which had been cooling in the same kind of uninsulated environment prior to the blanket being placed.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 14, 2012 13:59:23 GMT
Steve answered that it was possible due to the heat of decomposition And you thought that was a serious reply? Oh my. Ok then, forget the human body. How about a manikin, warmed to 98.6 degrees F, then placed outside in the cold at 50 F. Will the manikin get warmer if a blanket is placed around it? As i have already demonstrated if an object is warmed and then placed in air, the surface is colder than the interior and therefore the interior heats the surface. When the blanket is placed around the object the surface layer will rise in temperature until the various heating and cooling forces are in balance. The same would apply to a recently deceased dead body which had been cooling in the same kind of uninsulated environment prior to the blanket being placed. I believe the point that was intended was that the 'mannikin' would not get _warmer_. On Sigurdur's points. Perhaps you would explain Stefan Boltzmann's equation on radiation from a warm object. Is there anything in that equation that states a temperature at which radiation _stops_ other than absolute zero? Now if a _source_ of heat is provided like some distant nuclear reaction generating radiation, then of course we could see objects warming up - ask any sunbather. I believe though that the discussions on this thread are based on poor ontology. Peoplpe not understanding quite what the other means. If two objects without any internal or external heat source, one hot one not quite so hot are in proximity, both will cool slower than if they were isolated. They will both still cool down as there is no heat source to replace the radiated heat. The cool object will radiate heat at the warmer object but as the radiation is the 4th power of its temperature (pure S-B) then the hotter object is radiating far more. So the amount of 'warming' from the cool object from an observational point of view is small. The S-B equation would suggest that the objects would cool at different rates where the hotter object will tend toward the temperature of the cooler object. Now that's all nice on the back of an envelope - whether in the case of Earth with 2/3rds water surface that IR from above will not penetrate, things are not so simple. Also as the nice graphic for this section of the board shows - water changing state generates FAR FAR more IR than just from the surface look at how bright that hurricane is compared to the hot water surface over which it is traveling. A day of a 'normal' hurricane just in terms of water state change releases energy: "equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity"www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.htmlSimilar amounts are being generated by every low pressure system (although not as focused). As the reference states this is "an incredible amount of energy produced! "Not as simple as a misused S-B equation though; so all the climate 'scientists' stick with S-B and say they don't really understand clouds - after all it would ruin all the excitement that they are causing.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 14, 2012 15:59:29 GMT
As i have already demonstrated if an object is warmed and then placed in air, the surface is colder than the interior and therefore the interior heats the surface. When the blanket is placed around the object the surface layer will rise in temperature until the various heating and cooling forces are in balance. The same would apply to a recently deceased dead body which had been cooling in the same kind of uninsulated environment prior to the blanket being placed. I believe the point that was intended was that the 'mannikin' would not get _warmer_. On Sigurdur's points. Perhaps you would explain Stefan Boltzmann's equation on radiation from a warm object. Is there anything in that equation that states a temperature at which radiation _stops_ other than absolute zero? Now if a _source_ of heat is provided like some distant nuclear reaction generating radiation, then of course we could see objects warming up - ask any sunbather. I believe though that the discussions on this thread are based on poor ontology. Peoplpe not understanding quite what the other means. If two objects without any internal or external heat source, one hot one not quite so hot are in proximity, both will cool slower than if they were isolated. They will both still cool down as there is no heat source to replace the radiated heat. The cool object will radiate heat at the warmer object but as the radiation is the 4th power of its temperature (pure S-B) then the hotter object is radiating far more. So the amount of 'warming' from the cool object from an observational point of view is small. The S-B equation would suggest that the objects would cool at different rates where the hotter object will tend toward the temperature of the cooler object. Now that's all nice on the back of an envelope - whether in the case of Earth with 2/3rds water surface that IR from above will not penetrate, things are not so simple. Also as the nice graphic for this section of the board shows - water changing state generates FAR FAR more IR than just from the surface look at how bright that hurricane is compared to the hot water surface over which it is traveling. A day of a 'normal' hurricane just in terms of water state change releases energy: "equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity"www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.htmlSimilar amounts are being generated by every low pressure system (although not as focused). As the reference states this is "an incredible amount of energy produced! "Not as simple as a misused S-B equation though; so all the climate 'scientists' stick with S-B and say they don't really understand clouds - after all it would ruin all the excitement that they are causing. Nautonnier Once again i find that i agree with most things you say. You can obviously think like a scientist. >>If two objects without any internal or external heat source, one hot one not quite so hot are in proximity, both will cool slower than if they were isolated. This is true but i have been endlessly abused for saying this. And that is the point here i think for me anyway. Ie a few people here are unable to think scientifically and when challenged and asked to think about what they are saying, they get fairly irritable and unyeilding.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 14, 2012 16:22:26 GMT
nautonnier said:
"On Sigurdur's points. Perhaps you would explain Stefan Boltzmann's equation on radiation from a warm object. Is there anything in that equation that states a temperature at which radiation _stops_ other than absolute zero?"
Iceskater......do you understand this?
|
|