Questions…..re the greenhouse effect page 243 us message board – political discussion forum gaston y daniela

#

So the answer is no..you can’t provide even the first piece of real observed, measured evidence in support of your belief in spontaneous two way energy flow….You finally acknowledge that what you have is a model and nothing more…and it just pisses you off that what I see is not beautiful new clothes draped over the emperor but his pimply old ass hanging out. Old rocks calls it smart photons because it looks like magic to him and the rest of you fall in line believing that in order for energy to obey the laws of physics, said energy must be smart…

And yet more lies…have you always been such a liar, or are you lying out of the frustration of trying to convert someone to your belief who keeps asking for evidence. I said that science has little knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of radiative energy exchange…And a model is no mystery to anyone…but let me reiterate…a model is not reality…you can know a model as intimately as you like, but until such time as reality bears it out in the form of observation and measurement, it is just a model…know the model as well as you like…reality remains a mystery.

And on the contrary…I understand mathematical abstractions far better than you. Even when you call them what they are, you fail to understand what you have said. I understand them well enough to know that they are not reality…they are stories…they are place holders that do nothing more than fill in the gaps in our knowledge. You, on the other hand believe they are real….you believe that they are as real as linear measurement of distance. A gross intellectual failing on your part and the very reason you are so frustrated that you can’t make me see them in terms as real as you see them…you fail to grasp that I am the one seeing them as they are…models…fabrications…stand in’s for reality…

I don’t think you actually grasp the meaning of reality. Reality is the state of things as they are…as they are observed…as they are measured as contrasted by the way one may wish them to be. You wish there were actual measurements and observations of two way energy flow..but alas, there are not…what you wish is not reality…

Where is my evidence that science is wrong? Again, you fail to grasp the far more important question…where is your evidence that science is right. Science is, after all supposed to be a systematic study of the physical world through experiment, observation, and measurement. Now you have a field of study which is defined by observation measurement which holds forth a thing as real to which they have neither observation or measurement? I am asking for evidence in support of what I am being asked to believe… Why aren’t you? If you don’t answer any other question I have asked, I would like an answer to that one…why do you believe without any actual evidence when science is defined by its ability to produce and provide evidence?

Four different experimental laws involving electricity and magnetism were discovered by four different scientists. Maxwell consolidated the four experimental laws into what’s now called Maxwell’s equations. The equations show that vibrating charges emit waves.

This new prediction lead to many experiments. Hertz was the first to test radio frequency transmission to verify Maxwell’s equations. Through many experiments and observations it was later concluded that these waves were also the basis of light, Xrays, infrared, etc.

The wave nature of light was well-known for centuries: At high light levels, experiments observed diffraction. The particle nature became more apparent about 100 years ago. At very low light levels the light came in “chunks”. Einstein first explained the chunkiness as separate particles and got the Nobel Prize for the “Photoelectric Effect”.

The nature of EM radiation came from experiments that defied intuition and were a puzzle. Some experiments showed the wave nature and other experiments showed the particle nature. Quantum mechanics came about and showed a way mathematics could verify and predict experiments on the dual nature of light and particles. Light traveling through space acts like waves. Light interacting with matter acts like particles.

As you can see, many repeatable, observations, tests, and measurements lead to understanding the nature and behavior of light and matter. All of these behaviors are successfully codified in the Schroedinger equation, and later Quantum Electrodynamics. This cohesive codified understanding is what allows scientists to make deeper statements about observations that are either seen or predicted.

The major example here is that, between objects at any temperatures, radiation exchange is the only thing that makes sense in the total picture of all past experiments. You are arguing from the perspective of observations, tests, and measurements. I am too, along with the whole scientific community.