|
Post by icefisher on Jan 12, 2016 7:23:59 GMT
There is a good article on Climate Etc. discussing the nature of skepticism vs belief. judithcurry.com/2016/01/09/on-distinguishing-disbelief-and-nonbelief/#more-20863I think the key points are 1) It is important to distinguish between disbelief and nonbelief– between believing a sentence is false and merely not believing it true. and 2) The public has gotten into the attitude of mind which it likes to call skepticism, but which is nothing more or less than dogmatism hiding under false colors. It thinks that belief is the only thing that can be biased and does not dream that denial can be biased, and in fact that the bias of denial is not only less justifiable but far worse than the bias of belief. It has not basis upon which to rest at all except belief. I think its an interesting read. As an auditor I was trained to be a skeptic and am aware of this disbelief bias. The reason was the auditing firm suffers from either believing what is not true or disbelieving what is true.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 12, 2016 7:38:36 GMT
There is a good article on Climate Etc. discussing the nature of skepticism vs belief. judithcurry.com/2016/01/09/on-distinguishing-disbelief-and-nonbelief/#more-20863I think the key points are 1) It is important to distinguish between disbelief and nonbelief– between believing a sentence is false and merely not believing it true. and 2) The public has gotten into the attitude of mind which it likes to call skepticism, but which is nothing more or less than dogmatism hiding under false colors. It thinks that belief is the only thing that can be biased and does not dream that denial can be biased, and in fact that the bias of denial is not only less justifiable but far worse than the bias of belief. It has not basis upon which to rest at all except belief. I think its an interesting read. As an auditor I was trained to be a skeptic and am aware of this disbelief bias. The reason was the auditing firm suffers from either believing what is not true or disbelieving what is true. Bullshit You are the so called auditor who has a religious belief that radiation netting is the devil. In a totally surreal moment you claimed if an auditor noticed netting, it would cause him to zoom into fraud and therefore anybody talking about radiation netting was a fraud We all understand net income. What kind of a f**k wit auditor cannot understand radiation netting? Why do you need these strong religious beliefs? What exactly is so troubling about reality??
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 12, 2016 9:17:24 GMT
There is a good article on Climate Etc. discussing the nature of skepticism vs belief. judithcurry.com/2016/01/09/on-distinguishing-disbelief-and-nonbelief/#more-20863I think the key points are 1) It is important to distinguish between disbelief and nonbelief– between believing a sentence is false and merely not believing it true. and 2) The public has gotten into the attitude of mind which it likes to call skepticism, but which is nothing more or less than dogmatism hiding under false colors. It thinks that belief is the only thing that can be biased and does not dream that denial can be biased, and in fact that the bias of denial is not only less justifiable but far worse than the bias of belief. It has not basis upon which to rest at all except belief. I think its an interesting read. As an auditor I was trained to be a skeptic and am aware of this disbelief bias. The reason was the auditing firm suffers from either believing what is not true or disbelieving what is true. Bullshit You are the so called auditor who has a religious believe that radiation netting is the devil. In a totally surreal moment you claimed if an auditor noticed netting, it would cause him to zoom into fraud and therefore anybody talking about radiation netting was a fraud We all understand net income. What kind of a f**k wit auditor cannot understand radiation netting? Why do you need these strong religious beliefs? What exactly is so troubling about reality?? Oh I understand radiation netting as you presented it. What you don't understand is what the job of an auditor is. I suppose that if I believed the cartoon depiction of the photon theory as dogmatically as you do I would be hard pressed to explain away the implied physical result of the netting. But you need to understand it is not the job of an auditor to do any netting. Bookkeepers are the ones that net things such as income in accordance with instructions. Auditors come only to inspect the netting for mathematical correctness and for missing expenses not netted and fake revenues netted. Missing revenues and fake expenses can be a concern also but usually the largest threat in the standard audit environment is of overstating income and deceiving investors into believing everything is hunkydory. So an auditor must get evidence of the existence of the backradiation you are netting. Fact is Andrew I have seen many scientists question the existence of backradiation. It seems you saw the cartoon in the physics book and believe it. Now I understand most scientists accept the theory. Further such acceptance does no harm unless that acceptance turns into belief and that belief leads to harm. It generally does not cause any harm because "feedback sensitivity" provides an universal catch-all adjusting mechanism to go so far as nullify the application of the theory if it shown to have no real effect. It makes sense that a scientist studying climate would not find it necessary to destroy the photon theory in order to learn about climate so why take on such a monumental task? There are others working on it in the "theory of everything". Its been noted there are problems with the theory. For example the photon theory of lightwave electromagnetism is not consistent with other forms of electromagnetism that flow only in one direction positive pole to negative pole. Fact is we can only detect cold radiation by either using something colder (passive) or using some electronic gimmickry that measures a negative flow of energy (active). It may well be that radiation only flows in all directions when the radiating object is surrounded by colder objects. You though religiously believe its more than that because you saw the cartoon depiction of it in your physics reader. But depicting it is not proof of it. One can depict false relationships and people can net false stuff against real stuff. An auditor that cannot get evidence it is true is required to qualify his opinion. (namely talk about the uncertainty that the revenue is real, for example) An auditor has to be sharply tuned into fake revenues being netted with real costs just as much as he need be aware of fake radiation being netted with real radiation. If the auditor is a robot that automatically nets anything put in front of him he is not going to be an effective auditor. In fact he is useless. Why am I skeptical of the photon going everywhere theory even if not working as auditor? Well its really hard to fathom what the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to if they do. My own thoughts on how this affects you is that you need to just get used to the idea that not everybody is going to agree with you just because you are so smart.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 12, 2016 9:46:51 GMT
Bullshit You are the so called auditor who has a religious believe that radiation netting is the devil. In a totally surreal moment you claimed if an auditor noticed netting, it would cause him to zoom into fraud and therefore anybody talking about radiation netting was a fraud We all understand net income. What kind of a f**k wit auditor cannot understand radiation netting? Why do you need these strong religious beliefs? What exactly is so troubling about reality?? Oh I understand radiation netting as you presented it. What you don't understand is what the job of an auditor is. I suppose that if I believed the cartoon depiction of the photon theory as dogmatically as you do I would be hard pressed to explain away the implied physical result of the netting. But you need to understand it is not the job of an auditor to do any netting. Bookkeepers are the ones that net things such as income in accordance with instructions. Auditors come only to inspect the netting for mathematical correctness and for missing expenses not netted and fake revenues netted. Missing revenues and fake expenses can be a concern also but usually the largest threat in the standard audit environment is of overstating income and deceiving investors into believing everything is hunkydory. So an auditor must get evidence of the existence of the backradiation you are netting. Fact is Andrew I have seen many scientists question the existence of backradiation. It seems you saw the cartoon in the physics book and believe it. Now I understand most scientists accept the theory. Further such acceptance does no harm unless that acceptance turns into belief and that belief leads to harm. It generally does not cause any harm because "feedback sensitivity" provides an universal catch-all adjusting mechanism to go so far as nullify the application of the theory if it shown to have no real effect. It makes sense that a scientist studying climate would not find it necessary to destroy the photon theory in order to learn about climate so why take on such a monumental task? There are others working on it in the "theory of everything". Its been noted there are problems with the theory. For example the photon theory of lightwave electromagnetism is not consistent with other forms of electromagnetism that flow only in one direction positive pole to negative pole. Fact is we can only detect cold radiation by either using something colder (passive) or using some electronic gimmickry that measures a negative flow of energy (active). It may well be that radiation only flows in all directions when the radiating object is surrounded by colder objects. You though religiously believe its more than that because you saw the cartoon depiction of it in your physics reader. But depicting it is not proof of it. One can depict false relationships and people can net false stuff against real stuff. An auditor that cannot get evidence it is true is required to qualify his opinion. (namely talk about the uncertainty that the revenue is real, for example) An auditor has to be sharply tuned into fake revenues being netted with real costs just as much as he need be aware of fake radiation being netted with real radiation. If the auditor is a robot that automatically nets anything put in front of him he is not going to be an effective auditor. In fact he is useless. Why am I skeptical of the photon going everywhere theory even if not working as auditor? Well its really hard to fathom what the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to if they do. My own thoughts on how this affects you is that you need to just get used to the idea that not everybody is going to agree with you just because you are so smart. Bullshit. Cold light theories are the province of lunatics. 166 years ago Maxwells theory of heat demonstrated absorption of low temperature light by hot light and all of this has been exhaustively and painfully explained to you. >>Fact is we can only detect cold radiation by either using something colder (passive) or using some electronic gimmickry that measures a negative flow of energy (active). Bullshit. Todays mass produced uncooled IR micro bolometer camera arrays use passive detectors which become hotter on absorption and change their resistance and all of this has been exhaustively and painfully explained to you. www.sofradir-ec.com/wp-uncooled-detectors-achieve.asp>>Why am I skeptical of the photon going everywhere theory even if not working as auditor? Well its really hard to fathom what the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to if they do. Bullshit. You reject the second law because you have an infantile objection to statistics being used in science that no amount of reason by anybody has been able to alter.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 12, 2016 19:58:13 GMT
Oh I understand radiation netting as you presented it. What you don't understand is what the job of an auditor is. I suppose that if I believed the cartoon depiction of the photon theory as dogmatically as you do I would be hard pressed to explain away the implied physical result of the netting. But you need to understand it is not the job of an auditor to do any netting. Bookkeepers are the ones that net things such as income in accordance with instructions. Auditors come only to inspect the netting for mathematical correctness and for missing expenses not netted and fake revenues netted. Missing revenues and fake expenses can be a concern also but usually the largest threat in the standard audit environment is of overstating income and deceiving investors into believing everything is hunkydory. So an auditor must get evidence of the existence of the backradiation you are netting. Fact is Andrew I have seen many scientists question the existence of backradiation. It seems you saw the cartoon in the physics book and believe it. Now I understand most scientists accept the theory. Further such acceptance does no harm unless that acceptance turns into belief and that belief leads to harm. It generally does not cause any harm because "feedback sensitivity" provides an universal catch-all adjusting mechanism to go so far as nullify the application of the theory if it shown to have no real effect. It makes sense that a scientist studying climate would not find it necessary to destroy the photon theory in order to learn about climate so why take on such a monumental task? There are others working on it in the "theory of everything". Its been noted there are problems with the theory. For example the photon theory of lightwave electromagnetism is not consistent with other forms of electromagnetism that flow only in one direction positive pole to negative pole. Fact is we can only detect cold radiation by either using something colder (passive) or using some electronic gimmickry that measures a negative flow of energy (active). It may well be that radiation only flows in all directions when the radiating object is surrounded by colder objects. You though religiously believe its more than that because you saw the cartoon depiction of it in your physics reader. But depicting it is not proof of it. One can depict false relationships and people can net false stuff against real stuff. An auditor that cannot get evidence it is true is required to qualify his opinion. (namely talk about the uncertainty that the revenue is real, for example) An auditor has to be sharply tuned into fake revenues being netted with real costs just as much as he need be aware of fake radiation being netted with real radiation. If the auditor is a robot that automatically nets anything put in front of him he is not going to be an effective auditor. In fact he is useless. Why am I skeptical of the photon going everywhere theory even if not working as auditor? Well its really hard to fathom what the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to if they do. My own thoughts on how this affects you is that you need to just get used to the idea that not everybody is going to agree with you just because you are so smart. Bullshit. Cold light theories are the province of lunatics. 166 years ago Maxwells theory of heat demonstrated absorption of low temperature light by hot light and all of this has been exhaustively and painfully explained to you. The experiment you referred me to was two hot flames of different colors one hotter than the other. The fact that you can see the cooler light through the flame of the hot light is not evidence that the hot flame has absorbed the photons from the colder light it only proves that a flame does not block the flow of photons to your eye a completely plausible concept that has not occurred to you. >>Fact is we can only detect cold radiation by either using something colder (passive) or using some electronic gimmickry that measures a negative flow of energy (active). Bullshit. Todays mass produced uncooled IR micro bolometer camera arrays use passive detectors which become hotter on absorption and change their resistance and all of this has been exhaustively and painfully explained to you. The detector is passive the instrument is active. The one bolometer I reviewed the specifications on showed that the extremely sensitive passive sensor was reading heat loss from the heat storage unit in the detector which was losing heat toward the object the detector was focused upon. Its an active system because it was not reading the temperature signature directly. www.sofradir-ec.com/wp-uncooled-detectors-achieve.aspA bolometer (or calorimeter) is a detector for radiation or particles. We use bolometers to detect light in the far-infrared and mm-waves. These detectors typically function as follows: An absorber of heat capacity C is thermally connected to a heat reservoir at temperature T0 by a weak thermal link G. The absorber sees the power of the incoming light Psignal and an electrical bias power Pbias and hence has a temperature T=T0+ (Psignal+Pbias)/G>T0. If the incoming power Psignal changes and Pbias stays constant the temperature T will change. A bolometer works by measuring this change of T with a thermometer which is directly attached to the absorber. You need to read and understand what is going on there. The purpose of the "heat reservoir" is to demonstrate the electrical effect in the resister when the warm unit is focused on a cold object. >>Why am I skeptical of the photon going everywhere theory even if not working as auditor? Well its really hard to fathom what the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to if they do. Bullshit. You reject the second law because you have an infantile objection to statistics being used in science that no amount of reason by anybody has been able to alter. You don't even know the substance of my objection. I don't reject the second law, its central to my objection regarding the warming of a warm object by a cold object via the absorption of cold object photons. And I don't reject statistics being used in science, but I have a very good handle on the fact that the scientific validity of the use of statistics in science is very tightly bound to the art of selecting a representative and/or homogeneous sample and properly utilizing statistical methods. Statistics is merely the most abused area in scientific investigation. Spend some time on Steve McIntyres Climate Audit site and learn why. Apparently Steve cut his teeth on detecting statistical abuses in uncovering mine salting operations. He is very very good at what he does.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 13, 2016 5:22:08 GMT
Wrong again sonny. Maxwell shows the hotter sodium light is absorbing the projected or analysed yellow lines from the colder lime light when the sodium light is placed between the slit and the eye or screen. Your astronomical far infrared detector is irrelevant and in any case the thermometer is directly connected to the detector. As already explained to you, cheap IR micro bolometers which do not use that method use passive detectors with no active component whatsoever. >>The detector is passive the instrument is active....You need to read and understand what is going on there. Bullshit. Just bullshit pulled our of your arse where you make no attempt to understand and learn. Which is why cold light ideas are for the insane, the stupid, or the sadistic.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2016 6:29:12 GMT
Wrong again sonny. Maxwell shows the hotter sodium light is absorbing the projected or analysed yellow lines from the colder lime light when the sodium light is placed between the slit and the eye or screen. Your astronomical far infrared detector is irrelevant and in any case the thermometer is directly connected to the detector. As already explained to you, cheap IR micro bolometers which do not use that method use passive detectors with no active component whatsoever. >>The detector is passive the instrument is active....You need to read and understand what is going on there. Bullshit. Just bullshit pulled our of your arse where you make no attempt to understand and learn. Which is why cold light ideas are for the insane, the stupid, or the sadistic. you imagine too much Andrew. Do you seriously expect anybody to take your word for it?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 13, 2016 6:48:38 GMT
Wrong again sonny. Maxwell shows the hotter sodium light is absorbing the projected or analysed yellow lines from the colder lime light when the sodium light is placed between the slit and the eye or screen. Your astronomical far infrared detector is irrelevant and in any case the thermometer is directly connected to the detector. As already explained to you, cheap IR micro bolometers which do not use that method use passive detectors with no active component whatsoever. >>The detector is passive the instrument is active....You need to read and understand what is going on there. Bullshit. Just bullshit pulled our of your arse where you make no attempt to understand and learn. Which is why cold light ideas are for the insane, the stupid, or the sadistic. you imagine too much Andrew. Do you seriously expect anybody to take your word for it? Bullshit. I already provided links to show you are full of shit and you have already been able to replace the authors conclusions with your own imaginations. Whatever I say or do your fantasised facts will always replace whatever anybody else can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2016 7:03:01 GMT
you imagine too much Andrew. Do you seriously expect anybody to take your word for it? Bullshit. I already provided links to show you are full of shit. Whatever I say or do your fantasised facts will always replace whatever anybody else can ever imagine. Typical avoidance Andrew post
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 13, 2016 7:14:07 GMT
Bullshit. I already provided links to show you are full of shit. Whatever I say or do your fantasised facts will always replace whatever anybody else can ever imagine. Typical avoidance Andrew post Liar. You read the text and replaced the authors conclusions with your own inventions Cold light theories have no basis in science whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2016 7:47:50 GMT
Typical avoidance Andrew post Liar. hardly.here is a recent link to one of the many times you have done exactly as i said. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/105599You read the text and replaced the authors conclusions with your own inventions what do the author's or your conclusions have to do with anything? Cold light theories have no basis in science whatsoever. never said they did andrew. it might come as a shock to you that science theoriuzes on everything while in fact knowing little.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 13, 2016 8:22:07 GMT
hardly.here is a recent link to one of the many times you have done exactly as i said. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/105599You read the text and replaced the authors conclusions with your own inventions what do the author's or your conclusions have to do with anything? Cold light theories have no basis in science whatsoever. never said they did andrew. it might come as a shock to you that science theoriuzes on everything while in fact knowing little. Bullshit. You are not going to get a nobel prize for knowing better than James Maxwell and all those who came after him. You are totally full of shit. Cold light theories have no basis in science whatsoever. We expect those cooling bricks to be warmer on the sides facing each other or the laws of physics are wrong. Something even a school boy would realise.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 13, 2016 8:43:00 GMT
thank god in the right area at last
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2016 14:57:41 GMT
hardly.here is a recent link to one of the many times you have done exactly as i said. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/105599what do the author's or your conclusions have to do with anything? never said they did andrew. it might come as a shock to you that science theoriuzes on everything while in fact knowing little. Bullshit. You are not going to get a nobel prize for knowing better than James Maxwell and all those who came after him. You are totally full of shit. Cold light theories have no basis in science whatsoever. We expect those cooling bricks to be warmer on the sides facing each other or the laws of physics are wrong, and all of your objections are pulled from your arse. Something even a school boy would realise. Hey Andrew you can choose to be a preening supplicant if you want to it doesn't bother me; but you should know that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that has no place whatsoever in science and I can guarantee nobody will ever win the Nobel prize being a preening supplicant. And yes I would expect the cooling bricks to be warmer on the sides facing each other than the other cooling sides. The only thing I ever criticized about your experiments is you had not reliably captured any actual significant increase in temperature of any surface. However, I acknowledged that you did capture different rates of cooling between the brick surfaces which results in differences in temperature of the various surfaces which I expected you could capture. Fact is if you were not such a egotistical moron you would realize that a unidirectional flow of energy packets could be attracted to a cooler object at a rate proportional to the difference in temperature with a warmer object and then become consistent with all other forms of electromagnetism eliminating the need for Maxwell's Moonbeam Theory And no it does not have any basis in science. Its just on the list of possibilities. And while Maxwell's Moonbeam Theory is an icon in science I am skeptical it has any real basis in science either. The only difference between the two theories is there would be the lack of a flow of photons from the cold objects to warm objects. Such a flow creates a need for an explanation for their fate which has never been provided. Science believes cold objects cannot warm warm objects so you should eliminate that. . . .but it seems you don't. As to Maxwell's flames the explanation is potentially easy, namely flames are at least partially transparent to photons. The spaces between energized atoms provides holes for photons to travel through. Einstein even showed photons could bend around hot objects to reach a cold object. Fact is Andrew if you can't even observe single photons you cannot observe them being absorbed all you can do is theorize it. And for every theory there are other possible explanations, the only requirement is to remain consistent with the laws of physics. We have gone around on this before and you ended up making outlandish arguments that a hot body cannot reach out to a cold body before it emits a photon, All that is though is a bunch of inculcated dogma. Theories still exist about a medium existing in outerspace that could operate similar to a conductor for the flow of electricity. You can be a moron and fail to visualize all that is known to be factual to see that possibility. Now I acknowledge that I am no expert physicist, more a philosopher. I certainly would welcome convincing evidence of which is correct but your preening supplication and insults simply is not sufficient. We went over most of this with the dead body threads and we agreed that the surface of the dead body could be warmed when a blanket was thrown over it but that such warming would come from a cooling yet even hotter body core and not moonbeams from the blanket. Yet this moonbeam nonsense becomes some kind of linchpin in global warming theory. All it does is add confusion because the moonbeams cannot directly warm anything even if they do exist. An electomagnetic potential theory also slows cooling and doesn't carry the confusing baggage of the moonbeam theory. The fact you keep running back to the moonbeam theory is frustrating as it makes it appear you are confused, since its not necessary to do that Andrew. And your infantile insults for me not understanding why you continually do run back to Maxwell's Moonbeam Theory just helps confirm how confused you are.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 13, 2016 15:34:43 GMT
Bullshit. You are not going to get a nobel prize for knowing better than James Maxwell and all those who came after him. You are totally full of shit. Cold light theories have no basis in science whatsoever. We expect those cooling bricks to be warmer on the sides facing each other or the laws of physics are wrong, and all of your objections are pulled from your arse. Something even a school boy would realise. The only thing I ever criticized about your experiments is you had not reliably captured any actual significant increase in temperature of any surface. Bullshit. From the beginning I demonstrated the hot plate got hotter and you foamed at the mouth. If you reduce the cooling rate of any heated surface it will get hotter. If you reduce the cooling rate of the earth it will head towards the temperature of the Sun, where if the earth is not cooled at all it will be the temperature of the Sun . If not the laws of physics are wrong. the surface of my cooling bricks got hotter and you foamed at the mouth. Evidently these realities are so troubling to you you need to claim I am Steve.
|
|