|
Post by Andrew on Mar 16, 2012 8:03:57 GMT
For the record I found a proof that the so called backradiation of climate 'science' is a totally understandable phenomena that is supported by well known observations that radiation from a cold object can be absorbed by a warmer object. 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. I missed this question from a few days ago. books.google.fi/books?id=DqAAAAAAMAAJ&dq=prevost%20theory%20of%20exchanges&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q=prevost%20theory%20of%20exchanges&f=falsethe third paragraph of the page i provided begins with: ‘in performing this experiment we suppose that the light of the lime-ball passes through the sodium-flame before it reaches the slit of the spectroscope’ The point being that when the sodium flame is placed between the screen and the slit or the slit and the eye a different version of the experiment can be done for the hotter sodium flame which now shines yellow light evenly across all of the spectrum of lime, apart from where the yellow from lime is absorbed. Continuing in the third paragraph, Maxwell then describes the dark lines resulting from that experiment. Additionally it has been known for hundreds of years that some plants and animals produce a cold light biologically The military are hoping to mutate fireflies so that infra red radiation can be produced chemically without a heat source so that for example a near surface helicopter could pick up weak emissions and land at night with no distant signs the substance had been dropped onto the ground. " March 4, 2012 www.defencetalk.com/military-eyes-glowing-secrets-of-fireflies-bioluminescence-28693/"The phenomenon is noteworthy because it creates light without heat, said Bruce Branchini, a chemistry professor at Connecticut College in New London.
For the military, that could mean using bioluminescence to mark objects or locations wouldn’t make them vulnerable to an enemy with heat-seeking technology"There seems to be no relationship with absorption temperature and temperature of an emitter. Objects behave quite peculiarly. For example red glass absorbs green light and freely transmitts red light. So you would not see that fungus light thru hot red glass very well if at all. Surprisingly if you heat red glass it glows green in the dark. Which is pretty amazing and yet still absorbs green light and transmits red. So if the hot coals behind red glass are cooler than the hotter dimly glowing but now green glass you see a mixture of the red coming from the cooler hot coal mixed with the beginnings of the green from the hotter red glass. Strange but true and known since long before Maxwells time If you then placed some copper in the coals which had a chlorine impurity in it, it would glow bright green and be absorbed by the red glass regardless of the temperature of the glass.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 17, 2012 4:58:52 GMT
You have provided no science reference establishing backradiation as a legitimate science fact. You are merely waving your arm and declaring backradiation exists. No where in the Maxwell paper can one deduce backradiation, in fact, the Maxwell paper is consistent with no backradiation. Icefisher cannot possibly be this stupid. It has to be some kind of sadistic game or he is being paid to do this
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 17, 2012 5:12:40 GMT
Icefisher said: You have provided no science reference establishing backradiation as a legitimate science fact. You are merely waving your arm and declaring backradiation exists.
Icescraper said: Icefisher cannot possibly be this stupid. It has to be some kind of sadistic game or he is being paid to do this
You are a real piece of work man. Since when is an ad hominem proof or even a shred of evidence in support of your position on this matter?
Ad hominems are reserved for people too stupid to know what a proof is and or has no clue if one exists or not.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Mar 18, 2012 4:00:24 GMT
iceskater, Was the use of "endless stupidity" really necessary? Perhaps you need to step away from the keyboard for a while and re-evaluate just why you spend time posting on these boards? When a conversation degrades to name calling it's usually best to just step away for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 18, 2012 8:02:24 GMT
iceskater, Was the use of "endless stupidity" really necessary? Perhaps you need to step away from the keyboard for a while and re-evaluate just why you spend time posting on these boards? When a conversation degrades to name calling it's usually best to just step away for a while. How else to describe it? For the last 6 weeks Icefisher has been disputing the following curves while telling me he is not disputing the curves All my experiments conform to these curves which are calculated without reference to the second colder surface that influences the cooling rate of the hotter surface. The curves are calculated using the radiation rate of a hot body at a certain temperature with no relationship at all to the temperature of the other body, and since there are two hot bodies a net radiation cooling rate can be found. Every single experiment of mine, that supports these curves, has been ridiculed as being impossible, as if I was inventing perpetual motion or the science was based on a lie and I was the liar. Magellan also said he was not disputing the curves but described the calculations behind the curves as 'psychobabble' and said I was a liar and a crook. These two like to dish it out but evidently they do not like their stupidity and obfuscation pointed out to them. After i modified that chart using an online calculator as indicated on the chart to help Icefishers understanding of what the chart was showing he replied Where is your evidence you are not just making stuff up? Its rather hilarious, to say the least, that all along while you have been accusing me of disputing the engineers radiation heat loss curves (despite my insistence I was not); that it has been you all along who has been disputing the chart finding a need to modify it to add a backradiation element to it that never before existed on the chart without a shred of scientific evidence. ROTFLMAO!!! Stupidity is too kind. And in the last week Icefisher has been using a visible light experiment to disprove backradiation and now tells me that visible light is not the same as IR so visible light experiments cannot be used to prove the existance of backradiation involving IR That is stupidity or obfuscation. It is just so mind bendingly silly it is beyond belief that such stupid behaviour is possible from genuine people.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Mar 18, 2012 13:45:55 GMT
iceskater, Maybe you just need to let it go and move on with a different topic.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2012 19:05:35 GMT
How else to describe it?
For the last 6 weeks Icefisher has been disputing the following curves while telling me he is not disputing the curves
You are almost pathological in your inability to listen.
I made it clear weeks ago the argument over backradiation and a "potential" or "attract/repel" driven models for electromagnetic energy transfer was IRRELEVANT!!!.
But you paid zero attention to that and concluded I must be disputing the ability of backradiation, if it exists, to do anything.
So you effectively continued to argue that the sun revolves around the earth because the sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west. . . .which is irrelevant to the argument between heliocentrism and geocentrism.
But you failed to listen, despite careful reasoning why I was saying it was irrelevant. Even in your response now you hold to backradiation as being the only explanation for the engineers radiation heat loss curve.
Quite simply it is not the only possible, still open to discovery, explanation. Ultimately this should be resolved via the theory of everything once someone is able to fully describe electromagnetism and all the processes it employs and why it is "perceived" to be have attracting and repelling poles in magnetic theory, poles in electric theory that allow currents across conductors due to differences in potential, and a photon theory that energy flows everywhere regardless of poles in photon theory and why it takes billions of absorptions and emissions in conductivity theory to create a temperature gradient but just one absorption and emission in the atmosphere as if the CO2 in the atmosphere were a super insulator.
The only stupidity going around is your closed mind to all that has not yet been discovered.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 18, 2012 20:15:07 GMT
How else to describe it?
For the last 6 weeks Icefisher has been disputing the following curves while telling me he is not disputing the curves
You are almost pathological in your inability to listen. I made it clear weeks ago the argument over backradiation and a "potential" or "attract/repel" driven models for electromagnetic energy transfer was IRRELEVANT!!!. But you paid zero attention to that and concluded I must be disputing the ability of backradiation, if it exists, to do anything. So you effectively continued to argue that the sun revolves around the earth because the sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west. . . .which is irrelevant to the argument between heliocentrism and geocentrism. But you failed to listen, despite careful reasoning why I was saying it was irrelevant. Even in your response now you hold to backradiation as being the only explanation for the engineers radiation heat loss curve. Quite simply it is not the only possible, still open to discovery, explanation. Ultimately this should be resolved via the theory of everything once someone is able to fully describe electromagnetism and all the processes it employs and why it is "perceived" to be have attracting and repelling poles in magnetic theory, poles in electric theory that allow currents across conductors due to differences in potential, and a photon theory that energy flows everywhere regardless of poles in photon theory and why it takes billions of absorptions and emissions in conductivity theory to create a temperature gradient but just one absorption and emission in the atmosphere as if the CO2 in the atmosphere were a super insulator. The only stupidity going around is your closed mind to all that has not yet been discovered. Yesterday you were claiming i was making up the changes i made to the net radiation heat loss curves and it was me who was disputing them and that you all along agreed with them. Now you are telling me you totally do not support the method whereby those curves were calculated, and you have no other method of calculating them. Is that stupidity or obfuscation or both?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2012 20:33:24 GMT
The only stupidity going around is your closed mind to all that has not yet been discovered. Yesterday you were claiming i was making up the changes i made to the net radiation heat loss curves and it was me who was disputing them and that you all along agreed with them. Now you are telling me you totally do not support the method whereby those curves were calculated, and you have no other method of calculating them. Is that stupidity or obfuscation or both? [/quote] So your claim in its entirety that I have no other way of calculating the heat radiation loss curves beyond interpolating a net emission from 2 opposing emissions?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 18, 2012 21:43:12 GMT
Yesterday you were claiming i was making up the changes i made to the net radiation heat loss curves and it was me who was disputing them and that you all along agreed with them. Now you are telling me you totally do not support the method whereby those curves were calculated, and you have no other method of calculating them. Is that stupidity or obfuscation or both? So your claim in its entirety that I have no other way of calculating the heat radiation loss curves beyond interpolating a net emission from 2 opposing emissions? You dont mean interpolating. Each point on those curves is just a simple net calculation result from stefan-boltzman that can be precisely placed on each part of the curve. Currently you obviously have no other way of producing a calculation to replicate those curves because there is no known relationship between temperature of emission and temperature of absorption that alters amount of heat transferred in the way your theory requires
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 18, 2012 22:34:08 GMT
Just to show how crazy this conversation has always been now that you are rejecting the stefan-boltzman method of producing the heat loss chart Close but no cigar! You obviously need some diagrams. And bumpy instructions, like cover your freezer door and then go to the store to get a cheap thermometer. Its almost impossible to follow what you are doing. But I suspect I know. heat transfer rates are much faster over bigger temperature differences due to the 4th power law. A warmer object sends less radiation with each degree it cools and a colder object needs more radiation for each degree it warms.So you may only be measuring differences in equilibrium process rates which will cause temperature difference in the radiating object even if backradiation does not exist. But like I said I don't understand what you are saying here so you might need some better terminology for multiple trays (seems like a lot of oven trays anyway and not sure which is doing what) and diagrams to explicit objects with easily identifiable labels. But all I could glean from what you seem to be trying to do was noting a very cold freezer window made the temperature of the measured object colder than another colder object than the measured object but warmer than the window made the measured object temporarily warmer. An illusion of backradiation. But completely explanable by variable rates of seeking equilibrium due to the difference between emissions and temperatures.I noted you had to do that fast because otherwise the middle object would warm to room temperature. All very obvious stuff derived from the 4th power relationship of radiation to temperature.Perhaps a clearer description and some diagrams would correct that perception if its wrong. And if you feel that the 4th power issue does not solve this dilemma you need to show your numbers, for which you will need some calculations for beginning and ending heat content to show the temporary temperature difference was not completely explained by the 4th power effect and the heat masses of the various objects.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2012 22:55:20 GMT
You dont mean interpolating. Each point on those curves is just a simple net calculation result from stefan-boltzman that can be precisely placed on each part of the curve.Currently you obviously have no other way of producing a calculation to replicate those curves because there is no known relationship between temperature of emission and temperature of absorption that alters amount of heat transferred in the way your theory requires.
S&B was derived from Plancks law and observations. The idea it was created by observing backradiation when backradiation has never been separately observed is. . . .well laughable.
You must know nothing about electricity where one can estimate flows of electricity without any flow by referring to the energy "potential" of the poles and the resistance between the poles.
All you are doing is claiming if a potential exists there must be a flow and nothing, zip, nada, in the universe could cause it not to flow.
But nothing else I know in the world actually is an irresistable force and I would suggest you have no evidence whatsoever that light is an irresistable force.
Its like figuring the flow of water from the bottom of a column of water.
The fact that light does flow between objects of various temperatures allows the mathematical derivation of Planck's law and the S&B equations. Making the observation of back radiation a requirement to do that, would mean we would not have those laws.
Where the heck did you get your degree. Kelloggs Corn Flakes?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 19, 2012 4:47:09 GMT
You dont mean interpolating. Each point on those curves is just a simple net calculation result from stefan-boltzman that can be precisely placed on each part of the curve.Currently you obviously have no other way of producing a calculation to replicate those curves because there is no known relationship between temperature of emission and temperature of absorption that alters amount of heat transferred in the way your theory requires.
S&B was derived from Plancks law and observations. The idea it was created by observing backradiation when backradiation has never been separately observed is. . . .well laughable. You must know nothing about electricity where one can estimate flows of electricity without any flow by referring to the energy "potential" of the poles and the resistance between the poles. All you are doing is claiming if a potential exists there must be a flow and nothing, zip, nada, in the universe could cause it not to flow. But nothing else I know in the world actually is an irresistable force and I would suggest you have no evidence whatsoever that light is an irresistable force. Its like figuring the flow of water from the bottom of a column of water. The fact that light does flow between objects of various temperatures allows the mathematical derivation of Planck's law and the S&B equations. Making the observation of back radiation a requirement to do that, would mean we would not have those laws. Where the heck did you get your degree. Kelloggs Corn Flakes? Stefan-Boltzman was derived around 1884, 21 years before planck founded quantum physics. All these ideas support Prevost Exchange principle SB specificies that hot bodies are radiating without regard to the temperature of their surroundings. You are challenging all of these laws and foundation principles which have never been falsified
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 19, 2012 4:56:40 GMT
Stefan-Boltzman was derived around 1868, almost 40 years before planck founded quantum physics.
All these ideas support Prevost Exchange principle
SB specificies that hot bodies are radiating without regard to the temperature of their surroundings.
You are challenging all of these laws and foundation principles which have never been falsified
You will need to explain using equations why I am not in compliance with an equation Iceskater. . . .obviously. . . .I hope for your sake.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 19, 2012 5:24:41 GMT
Stefan-Boltzman was derived around 1868 in 1884, almost 40 21 years before planck founded quantum physics.
All these ideas support Prevost Exchange principle
SB specificies that hot bodies are radiating without regard to the temperature of their surroundings.
You are challenging all of these laws and foundation principles which have never been falsifiedYou will need to explain using equations why I am not in compliance with an equation Iceskater. . . .obviously. . . .I hope for your sake. SB specifies the total energy emitted by a hot body with no reference at all to the temperature of the surroundings. You are saying a hot body emits less energy proportional to the temperature of the surroundings.
|
|