Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (22380)	7/20/2008 9:48:14 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

//addendum. Nearly got the second bit tight. A couple of word substitutions... Now let us suppose that that, after it has reached equilibrium with B, one of the bodies, say C, is transferred to a cooler evacuated enclosure D. It loses heat and cools to the temperature of D. Therefore it is radiating energy. But if C, is transferred to a warmer enclosure F then C gains heat and warms up to the temperature of F. i.e. it is absorbing energy. It seems unreasonable that to suppose that C stops radiating when transferred to F; it is more reasonable to suppose that it goes on radiating but, while cooler then F it absorbs more then it radiates.

To: maceng2 who wrote (22380)	7/20/2008 11:44:39 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Dear pearly plus one, you only are fooling your self by overcomplicating. The heat goes from the warmer to the cooler. The heat does not go from the cooler to the warmer. And it you simply repeat with different words the error in application of the 2nd law. You do not grasp the fundamental sameness of heat and energy and the difference of IR as heat and energy. It may be you can find all number of example of the mis-application of the 2nd law all over the net, It is clear many physicists also just don't get it. And you can find wrong and stupid pro and con anthropogenic GW warming arguments all over the net. But G and T have explained correctly within the framework of physics. You simply cannot see the obvious checkmate in 1 move. When the facts are not consistent with the assumptions, The assumptions are wrong. The models based upon a mis-application of the 2nd law show a fingerprint and the fingerprint does not exists. Look at Monckton's article as it explains the mission finger print that I posted independently month and month ago. Yes before I read anyone else. You cannot connect what is the same and different correctly. That is You simply cannot see the obvious checkmate in 1 move.