Problematic Science Incorporated
Posted by Jeff Id on June 3, 2013
Holy crap. I have realized it isn’t practical to do a half of a blog. Did you know that the Internet is full of crazy people. I’ve heard rumors, read other blogs, often commented on the generally high quality of tAV readers but when I don’t blog on science for months, guess what happens.
Anti-science stuff as far as the eye can see! So many people with a crazy, poorly understood concept of science on the planet seems to fill in the crevices of conversation. Enough to thoroughly upset my understanding of reality. Everyone who thinks they have solved a new form of backradiation, new thermodynamics, black body radiation, global warming or whatever asinine concept in the world seems to have a crazy opinion. Not one lick of common sense to regulate the mess. F-ing frustrating.
Then there is Joe Postuma, PSI “super-genius”,
who left a link explaining his new theory of zero backradiation locked up in a pile of chapter 1 thermodynamics equations. Joe has solved the problem! As I have found typical of the PSI crowd, he is unable to explain his physics using “English” or other earth language and many are confused.
As a fellow human who lacks a universal translator yet can handle basic math, let me help explain Josephs post. In science, certain variables are defined as dependent and others are independent. It is a simple concept which means that some variables are representations of physical processes driven by others. Often, you find the dependent letters on the left side of the equals sign. Joe gets a little carried away with the concept and decides that the form of the math in his first equation dictates which variables are which, and forgets to consider the physics to see if he is correct. Lo and behold!!, many Internet morons on his thread agree. —– Shocking, I know. Thus Joe decides that the “independent” Earth temperatures dictate the “dependent” power received from the sun. I know it is unusual but we humble observers are the idiots (or worse — undergrads) who need to open our minds!!
Vigorous rants ensue! Global warming is proven wrong again, even though there is no evidence in the post supporting or rejecting AGW presented.
It is frustrating because I left 4 questions. Four simple questions on the last thread for the entire PSI group and only one person attempted an answer. Joe.
In answering, he combined my questions, failing to note that they asked for explanation of the differentiation between PSI and standard physics. It isn’t his fault though because, as we have recently uncovered, PSI cannot tell the difference between their own theory and standard physics.
I am only partially surprised by that but that is because I have read some of their work. Below are my four original questions from the last post. Note that groups (1 and 3) and (2 and 4) request differentiation. Do you wonder why I did that?
1 Define and describe the probability characteristics of Second Law of Thermodynamics as interpreted in classical physics using your own words. Demonstrable understanding of the standard version of the second law is important so that we have common ground.
2 Describe standard physics interpretation of radiation absorption from a cold to hot body.
3 Describe the PSI interpretation of the Second law highlighting differences in energy transfer from the standard interpretations.
4 Describe the PSI interpretation of what happens to radiation from a cold to hot body, with focus on temperatures.
Joe’s, being the only PSI representative capable of attempting answers provided:
1) & 3) are related, so: A closed system tends to a state of maximum entropy. Basically this means that all energy density differentials disappear and the system becomes totally useless, unable to perform any work within itself. Energy spontaneously transfers from low probability to high probability states. Low probability is high density (hot), high probability is low density (cool). This will manifest as spontaneous heat flow from hot to cold. There is no PSI difference from the traditional laws.
2) & 4) are related: Cold radiation does not heat up hot bodies as this would be a violation of the laws of thermo as discussed. It is the hot body which transfers heat to the cold and causes the cold temperature to increase. The presence of a cold body does not mean that a hot body has to warm up – the cold body just warms up until the same energy states are shared by both the cold and hot bodies, and then energy is available to transfer to other things on the far side of the cold body if some condition exists there. The PSI position is the traditional one, whereas we routinely see GHE advocates argue that radiation from a cold body has to heat up a hotter body, or, that the cold body can heat the hot body as long as the “majority net” heating is from hot to cold, which is of course sophistry, but it sounds good. Energy can be shared both ways between hot and cold, but the cold does not cause or require the hot to become hotter – the cold is simply heated by the hot.
Regarding 1 & 3 from Joe’s answers above, excepting the indecipherable probability statements, there isn’t much to take home from it. Apparently PSI does recognize the second law of thermodynamics it even seems to realize the second law is a bulk property although the description left me confused. Regarding 2 & 4 though, it has more
errors discontinuities than a first grade calculus exam. It is impossible to begin except that Joe claims radiation from a cold body doesn’t “heat up” or in other words, it doesn’t “add heat energy” to the hot body. Which leaves one wondering, just what the hell happened to those photons of energy?
Being a naturally curious person, I asked:
Lets say we have two perfect blackbodies, one at 100K, another at 200K. What happens to a single photon emitted by the cold body that strikes the warm one?
This seems a innocuous question, one which would deserve an answer, especially from individuals purporting to understand thermodynamics better than everyone else. Basically, I got this for an answer, along with a bunch of silliness:
“It is the macroscopic behaviour where heat flow is observed in net, and no heating occurs from cold to hot. Cold doesn’t heat hot up in aggregate or in partiality at all.“
It is a surprising answer which seems to be supported by others in the group.
And heat energy associated with the photon’s journey can only move from warm to cold (from the higher excitation state to the lower excitation state); just as water in a river only flows downhill – there is no backward journey (eg no back radiation heating).
Really!? I ask with incredulity. Just what happened to the effing photons then (Joe or anyone else at PSI)? Where the hell did they go? Wormholes, reflection, tri-synchronous absorption, WHAT!???
Stupid individual photons anyway but did they reflect, reverberate, re-incarnate, recirculate, reciprocate or simply retarderate? Since asking the obvious question about what happened to the energy in our universe, I have been told:
Discussing individual quantum events is beside the point of the 2nd Law
Jeff, surely you would agree that energy is not the same thing as heat
When photons enter a body they will not add heat if the receiver is warmer than the emitter.
The photons do generate light, which we can see, but there is not necessary any added heat.
Besides, Postma already did give the answer when he said heat flow is proportional to a temperature differential – this still doesn’t mean that photons from the cold source cause heating, it means the two objects find equilibrium, but the cold object does not heat the hotter object. What the photons from the cold source are doing is expressed in this equation: Q = s*(Th^4 – Tc^4). This does not mean that the cold source raises the temperature of the hot source.
They want us to believe gases respond to the heat radiated by the Earth’s surface and send that energy back, which makes the surface warmer.
For some strange reason you seem to want to focus on a SINGLE photon from cold to hot – when this still isn’t even what the laws of thermo are because the laws are about the whole behaviour of a large ensemble of trillions of trillions of entities and interactions etc.
Thus far not one PSI individual can answer my question. NOBODY with wits enough to answer what any reasonably studied student of standard physics can. So I tease on, waiting for the group to rise to the challenge, hoping for a reasoned answer to my questions.
In the meantime, the same guys who cannot provide the answer to a simple question are generating complex finite element climate models which assume the result before calculating it. Sound familiar?