|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 8:41:41 GMT
that difficult to do huh? Yes. You have f**ked with me for 4 years. Day after f**k**g day you set out to f**k with me. even the simplest of ideas is beyond you. Either you do your calculations yourself or go f**k yourself well usually a teacher will do the calculation with one value then ask the student to do it with another value. you though sir haven't proven yourself a teacher and at the moment are only doing a great job of building your credentials as a charlatan and buffoon
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 8:43:58 GMT
Yes. You have f**ked with me for 4 years. Day after f**k**g day you set out to f**k with me. even the simplest of ideas is beyond you. Either you do your calculations yourself or go f**k yourself well usually a teacher will do the calculation with one value then ask the student to do it with another value. you though sir haven't proven yourself a teacher and at the moment are only doing a great job of building your credentials as a charlatan and buffoon Bullshit you piece of shit. I have been thru similar calculations with you time and time again. You claim to be a f**king auditor. All you have to do is use a f**king calculator. If you do not know how to use the calculator you can explain to me what you do not understand
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 8:52:19 GMT
well usually a teacher will do the calculation with one value then ask the student to do it with another value. you though sir haven't proven yourself a teacher and at the moment are only doing a great job of building your credentials as a charlatan and buffoon Bullshit you piece of shit. I have been thru similar calculations with you time and time again. You claim to be a f**king auditor. All you have to do is use a f**king calculator. If you do not know how to use the calculator you can explain to me what you do not understand OK Andrew said the steady state temperature is guessed to be half that of the surface. of course he doesnt know as it has never been demonstrated as the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object (only subject to field of view adjustments. and that is the state of the science on this topic. All they know is their non-standard calculations has to be half of what the standard calculation would be or there would be no backradiation to force warming of the hot surface. everybody agree with this untestewd new concept in science?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 9:03:40 GMT
Bullshit you piece of shit. I have been thru similar calculations with you time and time again. You claim to be a f**king auditor. All you have to do is use a f**king calculator. If you do not know how to use the calculator you can explain to me what you do not understand OK Andrew said the steady state temperature is guessed to be half that of the surface. I never said that. Emission rate is related to temperature by a constant and T to the power of 4. I might have given an example without doing maths where surface temperature was twice as high as the gas layer but it was never meant to be a rule.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 9:07:25 GMT
the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object The only way that is true, is when the objects are totally insulated froom any other environment so that the temperature of the insulation is the same temperature as the heat source
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 9:15:40 GMT
the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object The only way that is true, is when the objects are totally insulated froom any other environment so that the temperature of the insulation is the same temperature as the heat source totally insulated whats that?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 9:21:40 GMT
The only way that is true, is when the objects are totally insulated froom any other environment so that the temperature of the insulation is the same temperature as the heat source totally insulated whats that? It is the sort of magic stuff you need to enable your claim to be true >>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object Icefisher i suggest you do not be a c.unt all of your life. You have proven that you are now a c.unt of the highest order. Surely that should be sufficient?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 9:44:03 GMT
Well if debunking bullshit makes me a c.unt, I am proud of being a c.unt.
Well thats a really interesting proposition Andrew! Lets see when we look at transparent and reflective objects that reflect or transmit light through them without absorption, Stefan Boltzmann equations say even these non-absorbing objects will heat to a steady state in accordance with the stefan boltzmann equations. And you are saying that if they absorb the energy and are not perfectly insulated they will not.
It seems rather strange that objects warm more from non-absorption than they do from absorption, don't you think?
Maybe you really do need an experiment to prove this. Seems a reasonable request to relieve skepticism, unless of course you are one of those suckers that are born every minute, doncha think?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 9:49:22 GMT
A much more reasonable interpretation is the wave energy theory of vibrations. An object that is already vibrating at a higher rate will just deflect low energy waves. If you have a 500watt/m2 energy wave with a field of view of 1.0 then adding another 250w/m2 or even another 500w/m2 wave will not increase the vibration rate of an object already vibrating at a steady state.
Such a theory would allow transparent objects and reflective objects to warm to the same steady state even though it takes longer. Fascinating stuff but it sure looks like the greenhouse theory folks have been cooking the books.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 10:14:16 GMT
Well if debunking bullshit makes me a c.unt, I am proud of being a c.unt. Well thats a really interesting proposition Andrew! Lets see when we look at transparent and reflective objects that reflect or transmit light through them without absorption, Stefan Boltzmann equations say even these non-absorbing objects will heat to a steady state in accordance with the stefan boltzmann equations. And you are saying that if they absorb the energy and are not perfectly insulated they will not. It seems rather strange that objects warm more from non-absorption than they do from absorption, don't you think? Maybe you really do need an experiment to prove this. Seems a reasonable request to relieve skepticism, unless of course you are one of those suckers that are born every minute, doncha think? ? There is no such thing as a perfectly transparent or perfectly non-absorbing object unless you claim a vacuum is such an object How are you proposing to use radiation to heat these objects if you can find them?? It should be clear you cannot heat an object via radiation alone to the temperature of the heater unless magic 100% insulation is used or the heated object is placed inside the heater.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 11:12:30 GMT
Well if debunking bullshit makes me a c.unt, I am proud of being a c.unt. Well thats a really interesting proposition Andrew! Lets see when we look at transparent and reflective objects that reflect or transmit light through them without absorption, Stefan Boltzmann equations say even these non-absorbing objects will heat to a steady state in accordance with the stefan boltzmann equations. And you are saying that if they absorb the energy and are not perfectly insulated they will not. It seems rather strange that objects warm more from non-absorption than they do from absorption, don't you think? Maybe you really do need an experiment to prove this. Seems a reasonable request to relieve skepticism, unless of course you are one of those suckers that are born every minute, doncha think? ? There is no such thing as a perfectly transparent or perfectly non-absorbing object unless you claim a vacuum is such an object How are you proposing to use radiation to heat these objects if you can find them?? It should be clear you cannot heat an object via radiation alone to the temperature of the heater unless magic 100% insulation is used or the heated object is placed inside the heater. nothing is completely transparent Andrew. some things get very close. but in a field of light rated at the point of contact with a surface at 341 watts/m2, according to Stefan Boltzmann equations will warm to 278.5K whether its transparency allows it to absorb only 41watts/m2 or if it is opaque and it absorbs all 341watts/m2 whether insulated or not. That of course is what CO2 is about 88% transparent. Yet you wish to overturn Stefan Boltzmann by extrapolating some Planck photons, that is a choice not a fact. And to further confound the idea you now claim an object that absorbs all of tho 341 watts at its surface that surface is not going to get as hot as a transparent object (CO2??) because its not perfectly insulated. LOL!!! How much more fukked up can it get? In fact, Ludwig Boltzmann characterized Planck's photon theory as an "act of despair". Unfortunately this problem has not been resolved with current light theory schizophrenically flipping back and forth between a particle (packet of energy) and wave (frequency) theories. One can see it in how light spectrums are given in wavelengths and the energy they those waves result in a wattage. . . .except of course. . . .if they are transparent or reflective and then the wave theory heats the object without producing the watts. I assume your problem is you had a lousy physics teacher. And as a result you are doing a lousy job around here defending your theory. Of course an experiment that demonstrates the one way glass particle theory in the case of planets and atmospheres, either by model or being able to calculate the greenhouse effect and correlate to the amounts of greenhouse gases on other planets. So a 90% reflective or transparent object at 278.5K will only emit 34.1 watts/m2. It seems to me the mainstream physics student is prone to believe whatever he is told about which theory stands up and performs as opposed to demanding experiment to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 11:25:04 GMT
nothing is completely transparent Andrew. some things get very close. but in a field of light rated at the point of contact with a surface at 341 watts/m2, according to Stefan Boltzmann equations will warm to 278.5K whether its transparency allows it to absorb only 41watts/m2 or if it is opaque and it absorbs all 341watts/m2 whether insulated or not. That of course is what CO2 is about 88% transparent. Yet you wish to overturn Stefan Boltzmann by extrapolating some Planck photons, that is a choice not a fact. And to further confound the idea you now claim an object that absorbs all of tho 341 watts at its surface that surface is not going to get as hot as a transparent object (CO2??) because its not perfectly insulated. LOL!!! How much more fukked up can it get?
In fact, Ludwig Boltzmann characterized Planck's photon theory as an "act of despair". Unfortunately this problem has not been resolved with current light theory schizophrenically flipping back and forth between a particle (packet of energy) and wave (frequency) theories.
One can see it in how light spectrums are given in wavelengths and the energy they those waves result in a wattage. . . .except of course. . . .if they are transparent or reflective and then the wave theory heats the object without producing the watts.
I assume your problem is you had a lousy physics teacher. And as a result you are doing a lousy job around here defending your theory. Of course an experiment that demonstrates the one way glass particle theory in the case of planets and atmospheres, either by model or being able to calculate the greenhouse effect and correlate to the amounts of greenhouse gases on other planets. So a 90% reflective or transparent object at 278.5K will only emit 34.1 watts/m2.
It seems to me the mainstream physics student is prone to believe whatever he is told about which theory stands up and performs as opposed to demanding experiment to do it.
Stop fantasing You claimed perfect transmittance and now you are agreeing with me that it is not possible in the real world. So back to your earlier claim >>>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object It cannot warm to the same temperature as the hot radiating object because some of the radiation it receives is emitted without returning to the hot radiating object. The energy flow is from hot to cold. There is no thermal equilibrium. Just a steady state, where hot is heating cold. Prevost in 1804, called this an absolute equilibrium. The word absolute meaning "with no regard at all for external circumstances". So absolute equilibrium which some people refer to as radiation equilibrium means only there is a balance between energy arriving and energy leaving but there is no consideration taken at all for external circumstances of hot or cold.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 11:41:33 GMT
Stop fantasing You claimed perfect transmittance and now you are agreeing with me that it is not possible in the real world. I said transparent, not perfectly transparent. Let me ask you a question Mr Jerk. Is the windshield on your car transparent or is it opaque? 500 points if you can answer the question. The high number is to reward you for working through your learning disability.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 11:53:23 GMT
Stop fantasing You claimed perfect transmittance and now you are agreeing with me that it is not possible in the real world. I said transparent, not perfectly transparent. Let me ask you a question Mr Jerk. Is the windshield on your car transparent or is it opaque? 500 points if you can answer the question. The high number is to reward you for working through your learning disability. Icefisher you are transparent >> Lets see when we look at transparent ...... objects that ..... transmit light through them without absorption.... >>Stefan Boltzmann equations say even these non-absorbing objects will heat. So back to your earlier claim >>>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object It cannot warm to the same temperature as the hot radiating object because some of the radiation it receives is emitted without returning to the hot radiating object. The energy flow is from hot to cold. There is no thermal equilibrium. Just a steady state, where hot is heating cold. Prevost in 1804, called this an absolute equilibrium. The word absolute meaning "with no regard at all for external circumstances". So absolute equilibrium which some people refer to as radiation equilibrium means only there is a balance between energy arriving and energy leaving but there is no consideration taken at all for external circumstances of hot or cold.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 12:48:29 GMT
I said transparent, not perfectly transparent. Let me ask you a question Mr Jerk. Is the windshield on your car transparent or is it opaque? 500 points if you can answer the question. The high number is to reward you for working through your learning disability. Icefisher you are transparent >> Lets see when we look at transparent ...... objects that ..... transmit light through them without absorption.... You are in dire need of english lessons. Are you saying transparent windows do not transmit light without absorbing it? You are just trying to avoid the main argument so in typical jerkwad Andrew fashion you are trying to make shiit up. >>>>the only thing demonstrated has been the surface warms to the same temperature as the hot radiating object It cannot warm to the same temperature as the hot radiating object because some of the radiation it receives is emitted without returning to the hot radiating object. The energy flow is from hot to cold. There is no thermal equilibrium. Just a steady state, where hot is heating cold. Here is a piece from a Swedish Professor of Physics in how Planck changed Maxwells mechanical wave description of light. After much agony Planck in 1900 gave in and sacrificed rational deterministic wave mechanics, replacing it with irrational statistics of "energy quanta" described by himself as: the whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be... And so modern physics was born with the catastrophy elegantly handled by a Salomonic: light is both waves and particles, sometimes this sometimes that, and you are free to chose whatever suits you the best, also referred to as wave-particle duality. In 1905 the young Einstein used Planck's energy quanta to explain the photoelectric effect, which added to the success of the revival of Newton's primitive particle theory, requiring wave-particle duality because after all the full particle primitivism of Newton was untenable. But also wave-particle duality is a form of scientific primitivism: Of course you can as a reasonable human being sometimes act like a fool, but duality is here called schizophrenia, and schizophrenic science is crazy scienceFree to chose huh? LOL! Thats some strong scientific support! Prevost in 1804, called this an absolute equilibrium. The word absolute meaning "with no regard at all for external circumstances". So absolute equilibrium which some people refer to as radiation equilibrium means only there is a balance between energy arriving and energy leaving but there is no consideration taken at all for external circumstances of hot or cold.
|
|