|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 23, 2016 10:33:46 GMT
Aw no. We a talking about a ball. It doesn't radiate to a point. It radiates in all directions.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 13:58:26 GMT
OK this is so simple its silly since the center is hollow and thus a vacuum it has no temperature as expressed as a molecular velocity. and you have already told us the sphere is 15C. QED. Nonentropic, He will be getting confused by the different circumferances of these two objects where for the smallest object all of the radiation from it can only leave that small object and only be absorbed by the larger object whereas for the larger object far more radiations are absorbed by itself than reach the smaller object. I am supposing if we get a circumferance calculator and radiation net transfer heating curves we will be able to demonstrate the known laws of science and mathematics can survive the question. Thinking about it now I think I already did this challenge many years ago for Icefisher and I do not recall using a circumferance calculator. The answer will be 15C anyway. I checked the earlier conversation. Icefisher specified the areas of each sphere as simple ratios to make it simpler to calculate. forget the differences in diameter. i asked for an answer to the closest half degree which rules out any difference to the answer. So it appears you have given the correct answer: 15C. I probably should have simply said make the sphere hot enough so the steel ball surface was 15C. So the next thing we are going to do is float some glass beads in the space between the steel ball and the inside surface of the sphere.Uh lets just call it a gas why not! So what temperature would the gas be when its all warmed as much as its going to warm, without any lapse rate?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 14:51:25 GMT
Nonentropic, He will be getting confused by the different circumferances of these two objects where for the smallest object all of the radiation from it can only leave that small object and only be absorbed by the larger object whereas for the larger object far more radiations are absorbed by itself than reach the smaller object. I am supposing if we get a circumferance calculator and radiation net transfer heating curves we will be able to demonstrate the known laws of science and mathematics can survive the question. Thinking about it now I think I already did this challenge many years ago for Icefisher and I do not recall using a circumferance calculator. The answer will be 15C anyway. I checked the earlier conversation. Icefisher specified the areas of each sphere as simple ratios to make it simpler to calculate. forget the differences in diameter. i asked for an answer to the closest half degree which rules out any difference to the answer. So it appears you have given the correct answer: 15C. I probably should have simply said make the sphere hot enough so the steel ball surface was 15C. So the next thing we are going to do is float some glass beads in the space between the steel ball and the inside surface of the sphere.Uh lets just call it a gas why not! So what temperature would the gas be when its all warmed as much as its going to warm, without any lapse rate? sigh The outer sphere is 15c it cannot cause the inner sphere to become hotter than 15c How much more of this stupidity are you going to come up with? Why in Gods name are you objecting to Spencers thought experiment on the basis of distance insulation and surface area and then claiming it applies to the bricks? ??
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 16:20:16 GMT
forget the differences in diameter. i asked for an answer to the closest half degree which rules out any difference to the answer. So it appears you have given the correct answer: 15C. I probably should have simply said make the sphere hot enough so the steel ball surface was 15C. So the next thing we are going to do is float some glass beads in the space between the steel ball and the inside surface of the sphere.Uh lets just call it a gas why not! So what temperature would the gas be when its all warmed as much as its going to warm, without any lapse rate? sigh The outer sphere is 15c it cannot cause the inner sphere to become hotter than 15c How much more of this stupidity are you going to come up with? Why in Gods name are you objecting to Spencers thought experiment on the basis of distance insulation and surface area and then claiming it applies to the bricks? ?? So you say the gas will be 15C fine Andrew! I agree, everthing is 15C the sphere, the steel ball and the gas. No I am not objecting per se with the brick thought experiment Andrew. I have merely attributed the effect as an insulation effect primarily due to the billions of heat transfers are created in solid objects. But thats another topic lets stay on this one. OK so you are concerned that the 15C surface cannot warm anything warmer than that. I agree. So lets modify our sphere slightly lets turn it into an evenly distributed sphere of trillions of tiny points of VISIBLE light that radiates the identical amount of radiation on average as did our 15C sphere. Has the "mean" temperature or "mean" cooling rate changed for anything in our thought experiment?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 16:48:12 GMT
No I am not objecting per se with the brick thought experiment Andrew. Are you now telling me the basic principle of the greenhouse idea as illustated by roy spencers thought experiment is simple physics a school boy can understand, and no laws of thermodynamics can be broken and anybody who says otherwise is a scientific ignoramous?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 16:57:20 GMT
No I am not objecting per se with the brick thought experiment Andrew. Are you now telling me the basic principle of the greenhouse idea as illustated by roy spencers thought experiment is simple physics a school boy can understand, and no laws of thermodynamics can be broken and anybody who says otherwise is a scientific ignoramous? science rules are broken all the time. what happens is the scientists who supported the Pope (who punished people) on the Ptolemy's science of the heavens became the ignoramuses. Of course Ptolemy did not become an ignoramus, strongly suggesting that there is nothing wrong with having an imagination, doing the work, and maintaining skeptism but when you support a guy burning somebody at the stake for doing any of the above you are an ignoramus. Then science is rewritten and the ignoramuses are ceased to be recognized as scientists.. . .they become the deniers.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 17:02:45 GMT
Are you now telling me the basic principle of the greenhouse idea as illustated by roy spencers thought experiment is simple physics a school boy can understand, and no laws of thermodynamics can be broken and anybody who says otherwise is a scientific ignoramous?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 17:12:56 GMT
I know if I irradiate a wall with a strong radiant heat force a temperature gradient will be created in the wall, whether made of bricks or studs with fiberglass batts. If air is allowed to circulate around the wall the temperature gradient will be greatly reduced. That I know.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 17:20:09 GMT
I know if I irradiate a wall with a strong radiant heat force a temperature gradient will be created in the wall, whether made of bricks or studs with fiberglass batts. If air is allowed to circulate around the wall the temperature gradient will be greatly reduced. That I know. Yes you know very little and yet pretend to know so much. Even the simplest of scientific ideas is beyond you and yet you imagine your objections are the stuff of nobel prizes. For years you have been calling me a liar simply for attempting to explain to you something a child can understand.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 17:20:50 GMT
I know if I irradiate a wall with a strong radiant heat force a temperature gradient will be created in the wall, whether made of bricks or studs with fiberglass batts. If air is allowed to circulate around the wall the temperature gradient will be greatly reduced. That I know. Yes you know very little and yet pretend to know so much. You deny that?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 17:23:11 GMT
Yes you know very little and yet pretend to know so much. You deny that? What i know is the greenhouse idea is a very simple idea that cannot be disputed without disputing the science of the last two hundred years. You though from a position of embarrassing ignorance treat all who realise that with total contempt.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 17:29:57 GMT
I know if I irradiate a wall with a strong radiant heat force a temperature gradient will be created in the wall, whether made of bricks or studs with fiberglass batts. If air is allowed to circulate around the wall the temperature gradient will be greatly reduced. That I know. Yes you know very little and yet pretend to know so much. Even the simplest of scientific ideas is beyond you and yet you imagine your objections are the stuff of nobel prizes. For years you have been calling me a liar simply for attempting to explain to you something a child can understand. You deny that?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 17:31:52 GMT
Yes you know very little and yet pretend to know so much. Even the simplest of scientific ideas is beyond you and yet you imagine your objections are the stuff of nobel prizes. For years you have been calling me a liar simply for attempting to explain to you something a child can understand. You deny that? I never told any lies you ignorant son of a b.itch A child could have understood this topic. In the G&T refutation blog a great deal of time was spent trying to show G&T claim that warming of the surface by a colder atmosphere was not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The discussion on it by the AGW scientists was hilarious. Oh it doesn't heat the surface it nets out surface radiation. "nets out" ? You were just the stupid c.unt who either cannot read, or is totally insane, or who gets off by baiting people with endless stupidity For 4 f**king years you have been calling me a liar. And for what? Simply because you are too stupid to understand something a child can understand.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2016 17:40:46 GMT
I know if I irradiate a wall with a strong radiant heat force a temperature gradient will be created in the wall, whether made of bricks or studs with fiberglass batts. If air is allowed to circulate around the wall the temperature gradient will be greatly reduced. That I know. Yes you know very little and yet pretend to know so much. Even the simplest of scientific ideas is beyond you and yet you imagine your objections are the stuff of nobel prizes. For years you have been calling me a liar simply for attempting to explain to you something a child can understand. You deny that? A simple yes or no, please.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 24, 2016 17:46:07 GMT
Yes you know very little and yet pretend to know so much. Even the simplest of scientific ideas is beyond you and yet you imagine your objections are the stuff of nobel prizes. For years you have been calling me a liar simply for attempting to explain to you something a child can understand. You deny that? A simple yes or no, please. How about giving me a question that can be understood first What is the f**king question dipshit.
|
|