Climate change is pure bullshit!!

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nope. You erroneously declared all light within an arbitrary band to be the same light, and none of it was the light from the source.

Where did I do that? I have never declared all light within an arbitrary band to be the same light.
Here is what I said.

I conducted your experiment by using an Infrared light source and when I opened the container 15 minutes later the inside of the box emitted electromagnetic radiation in the infrared range. The correct answer is NOT "none" according to the experiment you set up. Did I just prove that you and Into the Night are wrong. Or did I just prove that you are making silly semantic arguments because you can't argue the science?

The only thing I did was point out that your claim of "none" was wrong. I didn't claim the light I put in was the same that came out. I didn't say anything about bands or wavelengths.
You are the one making huge leaps beyond anything I said. You are so stupid you can't even recognize your own stupidity.

Hint- Every time I open the container, whether I put light into it or not, it emits electromagnetic radiation. Your claim that the answer would be "none" was so stupid it seemed obvious you would get how wrong you were when I "did the experiment." I wonder what law you think doesn't exist since you claim the electromagnetic radiation coming from the container I opened. would be "none."

 

[Into the Night]

Where did I say anything about bands or frequencies or even wavelengths before you accused me of not knowing what they were?

Denying your own posts won't work, Poorboy.

I will bet you can't point to a single post of mine where that occurred. You have decided you can just accuse me of whatever you want to fantasize about.

Denying your own posts won't work, Poorboy.

It's funny how both you and Into the Night have identical ignorance when it comes to sarcasm.

Nothing like it. We both describe theories of science that you ignore. Theories of science don't change.

It's almost like you are the same person and not just members of the same band.

Still can't figure out frequency bands...sad.

Your experiment failed and now you are trying to run away from it.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted proof by contextomy fallacy.

When I opened my container there was clearly electromagnetic radiation coming from it when you claimed there would be "none."

You are word stuffing again. He never claimed there infrared light not being emitted by a container.

Tip that king all you want.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problem on anybody else, Poorboy.

You were wrong and can't admit it. I'm sure Into the Night will be along to spout about how you are "declaring victory."
(Probably not since his integrity is even less than yours.)

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Moving the goal posts doesn't change the fact that you claimed there would be "none" and you were wrong.

Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You can't blame YOUR fallacies on anybody else.

Let me know when you stop having to use yourself to provide support for your position.
Let me know when you admit that you were wrong about the result of your experiment.

He isn't.

 

[Into the Night]

Awesome!

I'm sure all those folks in the Caribbean (not to mention texass) will be glad to hear that.

Do you suppose that means the damage from the record setting hurricane will just disappear, like magic?

What 'record setting hurricane'???!?

 

[IBDaMann]

Where did I say anything about bands or frequencies or even wavelengths before you accused me of not knowing what they were?

First, let me see if you wish to make a bet.

I will bet you can't point to a single post of mine where that occurred.

Great. You're on. What are you betting.

It's funny how both you and Into the Night have identical ignorance when it comes to sarcasm.

It's not sarcasm (and the word you are looking for is "facetiousness," by the way) if it is a pivot to EVADE. You never returned to address how you were lumping all light in the huge infrared band as being the same light. Obviously if 10 micrometer light is absorbed and converted to thermal energy by a body, and then that body generates and radiates new 11 micrometer light, the previous 10 micrometer light was destroyed, not stored or trapped or contained or sequestered or entombed or bound or captured or encased.

It's almost like you are the same person and not just members of the same band.

Tell me more about your poor judgement and your lack of perception.

Your experiment failed and now you are trying to run away from it.

You didn't follow the experiment, preferring to do something else. Ergo, you never falsified the premise.

... *and* you still have not made any effort to provide a rational basis for your belief in an increase in the terrestrial average global equilibrium temperature. You apparently won't come near the topic.

Moving the goal posts doesn't change the fact that you claimed there would be "none" and you were wrong.

There was none of the light from the source. Your results were of a different experiement. You're wasting time and not supporting your religious dogma.

Let me know when something changes.

 

[IBDaMann]

The funny thing is, I repeated the experiment with a container and infrared flashlight and surprise, surprise, every time I repeat it the result is not "none."

The funny thing is that you didn't follow the experiment and surprise, surprise, your results are totally irrelevant.

Where did you use the word visible? Infrared flashlights exist and are easy to grab and turn on.

Sure, but you didn't follow the experiment. You lumped all light as being the same.

Your claim about capturing light in a container has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

Yes it does. It falsifies your claim, which was so absurd on its face that it didn't even need falsifying ... but I falsified it for you anyway.

You can't trap light, and you know this because you won't go anywhere near the topic of photons not traveling at the speed of light. You backed yourself into a very tight corner.

It seems your modus operandi is to lie about what others say

That is what you are doing. You haven't been honest in this conversation. You won't answer the questions posed to you because honest answers would all render your religion false and false answers get immediately flagged as being false, which falsify your premises.

Let me know when you will return to the topic of you explaining why any rational adult should believe your religion.

Let's start to count your lies.

You have no intention of ever remaining focused on the original topic of discussion, do you?

 

[moon]

These are ' Into the Nightsoil's statements '

"Sweden is not to the east of the UK "
" There is no such science as paleoclimatology "

Dumbass or troll ?
Both.



Likewise his pair of socks.

 

[Into the Night]

The funny thing is, I repeated the experiment with a container and infrared flashlight and surprise, surprise, every time I repeat it the result is not "none."

Contextomy fallacy.

You did NOT specify a flashlight with visible light. Now you have resorted to lying.

Yes he did. YOU are lying.

This is what you said.

Where did you use the word visible? Infrared flashlights exist and are easy to grab and turn on.

You can't capture infrared light either, Poorboy.

Your claim about capturing light in a container has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

He didn't claim it, Poorboy, YOU DID!

It seems your modus operandi is to lie about what others say and then claim they are wrong.

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problem on anybody else.

That would be a rather obvious example of a straw man fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy.

Congratulations. You couldn't even beat up the straw man you constructed.

He didn't construct one. You are word stuffing again.

And then you turn around and lie about what you said.

Inversion fallacy.

Let's start to count your lies.
1 You pretended I said light could be trapped in a container when I have never said anything to that effect.

You said exactly that, Poorboy. Denying your own posts won't work.

2. You claimed I don't know the difference between band and wavelength when I have never said anything about them.

He is correct. You don't know the difference between frequency, band, or wavelength. You DID bring up the subject. Denying your own posts won't work.

3. You claimed you used the word "visible" in your stupid experiment when it clearly does not exist there.

Irrelevance fallacy. You cannot trap light, regardless of the frequency.

 

[Into the Night]

Where did I do that?

Denying your own posts won't work, Poorboy.

I have never declared all light within an arbitrary band to be the same light.

Blatant lie. You did exactly that. You are now ignoring Planck's law.

Here is what I said.

The only thing I did was point out that your claim of "none" was wrong.

Word stuffing. That won't work, Poorboy.

I didn't claim the light I put in was the same that came out.

Yes you did. Blatant lie. Denying your own posts won't work.

I didn't say anything about bands or wavelengths.

Yes you did. Blatant lie. Denying your own posts won't work.

You are the one making huge leaps beyond anything I said. You are so stupid you can't even recognize your own stupidity.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU trying to pivot and change context. It is YOU playing word games.

Hint- Every time I open the container, whether I put light into it or not, it emits electromagnetic radiation.

You claimed it was the light you put into the container.

Your claim that the answer would be "none"

Word stuffing. Stop making shit up.

was so stupid it seemed obvious you would get how wrong you were when I "did the experiment."

You didn't conduct the experiment.

I wonder what law you think doesn't exist since you claim the electromagnetic radiation coming from the container I opened. would be "none."

Word stuffing. Stop making shit up.


You cannot trap light, regardless of frequency.

 

[Crepitus]

What 'record setting hurricane'???!?

Beryl.

Don't you ever watch the news?

 

[moon]

You cannot trap light, regardless of frequency.

You haven't got the mind-power to imagine the trap, you poor demented braggart.

These are ' Into the Nightsoil's statements '

"Sweden is not to the east of the UK "
" There is no such science as paleoclimatology "

Dumbass or troll ?
Both.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Denying your own posts won't work, Poorboy.

Denying your own posts won't work, Poorboy.

Funny how my prediction came true. You couldn't point to a single post where I said that. I am not denying my work. I am showing you are lying about my work since you can't provide support for your claim that I said something. I predict you will continue to fail to provide any link of me saying anything about bands or frequencies prior to the first accusation.

Nothing like it. We both describe theories of science that you ignore. Theories of science don't change.

Still can't figure out frequency bands...sad.

I am smart enough to know that light includes all frequency bands. I don't seem to be the one confused about what light is or what it includes since you seem to be arguing that infrared light is not light. (Hint- even a regular flashlight with an incandescent or halogen bulb emits infrared light.)

Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted proof by contextomy fallacy.

You are word stuffing again. He never claimed there infrared light not being emitted by a container.

He said there would be no light in the container. If light is escaping the container then it must have been in the container. None is not some.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problem on anybody else, Poorboy.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You can't blame YOUR fallacies on anybody else.

He isn't.

Repeated Fallacy fallacy

Into the Night repeatedly claims other posters have committed fallacies but never explains why the fallacy exists. He does this to try to appear smarter than he actually is.

 

[moon]

Repeated Fallacy fallacy

Into the Night repeatedly claims other posters have committed fallacies but never explains why the fallacy exists. He does this to try to appear smarter than he actually is.

THAT particular ploy hit the buffers years ago- and he's been the forum's scientific sociopath ever since.



Haw, haw................................................haw.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The funny thing is that you didn't follow the experiment and surprise, surprise, your results are totally irrelevant.

What part of the experiment did I not follow.
Flashlight - check (An infrared flashlight is a flashlight.)
container - check
Shine the flashlight into the container - check
Note that infrared light is entering the container - check
Close the container for 15 minutes - check
put the container in a cool dark place - check
open the container - check
Note that the container has infrared light coming out in direct contradiction to your claim that none of the infrared would be in the box.
You have decided to argue without any evidence that the light leaving is not the light that entered as an excuse for why the experiment fails to achieve the results you claim would happen.

Sure, but you didn't follow the experiment. You lumped all light as being the same.

I will be happy to conduct the experiment again when you tell me how to identify photons so we can track them over time. Until you do that, there is no way to tell where the photons are from in your silly experiment. Or are you saying your experiment is not a valid experiment since you simply assume the results in direct contradiction to the actual results. Since I am the one that conducted the experiment, explain how you tested the photons leaving my container to see where they came from.

Yes it does. It falsifies your claim, which was so absurd on its face that it didn't even need falsifying ... but I falsified it for you anyway.

You can't trap light, and you know this because you won't go anywhere near the topic of photons not traveling at the speed of light. You backed yourself into a very tight corner.

There is one small problem with your claim that it is impossible to trap light. Containers to trap light for extended periods of time exist.

A New Understanding of How to Trap Light

A newly published study from MIT reveals the mechanism responsible for trapping the light, showing that this trapped state is much more stable than had been thought. Researchers at MIT who succeeded last year in creating a material that could trap light and stop it in its tracks have now develope

scitechdaily.com

Scientists Trapped Light Inside a Metamaterial and Made It 10x More Magnetic

This could open doors to technologies we thought were impossible.

www.popularmechanics.com

That is what you are doing. You haven't been honest in this conversation. You won't answer the questions posed to you because honest answers would all render your religion false and false answers get immediately flagged as being false, which falsify your premises.

Let me know when you will return to the topic of you explaining why any rational adult should believe your religion.


You have no intention of ever remaining focused on the original topic of discussion, do you?

I see you are angry that your experiment failed because you ignored Stefan-Boltzmann when you set it up. If you want honesty, maybe you should start with yourself and correct your lies about what you have said and what I have said.
First step to honesty - Admit that "light" is not restricted to "visible light."
Second step to honesty - Admit that your experiment has no mechanism to tell the source of light that exits the container.
Third step to honesty - Admit that your assumption (after the experiment) of where the light comes from is not a valid conclusion for your experiment.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Denying your own posts won't work, Poorboy.

Blatant lie. You did exactly that. You are now ignoring Planck's law.

Word stuffing. That won't work, Poorboy.

Yes you did. Blatant lie. Denying your own posts won't work.

Yes you did. Blatant lie. Denying your own posts won't work.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU trying to pivot and change context. It is YOU playing word games.

You claimed it was the light you put into the container.

Word stuffing. Stop making shit up.

You didn't conduct the experiment.

Word stuffing. Stop making shit up.


You cannot trap light, regardless of frequency.

More unsupported claims from you about what I said with no evidence of my ever saying it. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claims. Failure to provide evidence is only evidence that you are lying.

Find where I said the light coming from the container was the same light that entered from my flashlight. The reality is the experiment has no mechanism for telling if it is or isn't We can only tell that light is exiting the container when opened. You make the asinine assumption that I claimed the light was the same when I never once say that. It seems you are so stupid you can't read English, let alone understand it.

By the way, it is possible to "trap" light. Too bad you don't keep up with the science conducted by real scientists.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You did NOT specify a flashlight with visible light. Now you have resorted to lying.

Yes he did. YOU are lying.

I eagerly await you showing us where in this statement a flashlight the emits visible light was specified.

Let's examine Into the Night's statement and confirm its veracity.

Grab a flashlight and turn it on. Notice the light flowing forth from it. Now grab a container in which to store the light flowing from the flashlight. Fill the container halfway full of light from the flashlight and then seal the container. Store the container in a dark, cool closet for 15 minutes. Open the container and retrieve the light that you had previously stored. How much is still there?

Did you answer "none"? Really? None? What happened to the light that you stored? Did it evaporate?

The funny thing is, everyone can see that no mention is made of light being visible or not that is flowing from the flashlight.


Let me make this simple for everyone.

Into the Night is lying.

 

[Into the Night]

Beryl.

Don't you ever watch the news?

Sure. What "record setting hurricane"??

 

[Into the Night]

Funny how my prediction came true. You couldn't point to a single post where I said that.

Denying your posts won't work, Poorboy.

I am not denying my work.

You are denying your own posts.

I am showing you are lying about my work since you can't provide support for your claim that I said something.

Denying your own posts won't work.

I predict you will continue to fail to provide any link of me saying anything about bands or frequencies prior to the first accusation.

I don't have to. ANYONE can go and read them for themselves.

I am smart enough to know that light includes all frequency bands.

Apparently not, since they had to be explained to you.

I don't seem to be the one confused about what light is

You obviously are.

or what it includes since you seem to be arguing that infrared light is not light.

Never did, Poorboy. Stop word stuffing.

(Hint- even a regular flashlight with an incandescent or halogen bulb emits infrared light.)

Irrelevant, Poorboy.

He said there would be no light in the container.

You cannot trap light, Poorboy.

If light is escaping the container then it must have been in the container. None is not some.

You cannot trap light, Poorboy.

Repeated Fallacy fallacy

Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

Into the Night repeatedly claims other posters have committed fallacies but never explains why the fallacy exists. He does this to try to appear smarter than he actually is.

Inversion fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

THAT particular ploy hit the buffers years ago- and he's been the forum's scientific sociopath ever since.



Haw, haw................................................haw.

Science is not people, Moonbat.

 

[Into the Night]

What part of the experiment did I not follow.
Flashlight - check (An infrared flashlight is a flashlight.)
container - check
Shine the flashlight into the container - check
Note that infrared light is entering the container - check
Close the container for 15 minutes - check
put the container in a cool dark place - check
open the container - check
Note that the container has infrared light coming out in direct contradiction to your claim that none of the infrared would be in the box.
You have decided to argue without any evidence that the light leaving is not the light that entered as an excuse for why the experiment fails to achieve the results you claim would happen.

You cannot trap light, Poorboy. Your word games aren't going to work.

I will be happy to conduct the experiment again when you tell me how to identify photons so we can track them over time.

See Planck's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, both of which you are ignoring.

Until you do that, there is no way to tell where the photons are from in your silly experiment.

See Planck's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, both of which you are ignoring.
You cannot trap light.

Or are you saying your experiment is not a valid experiment since you simply assume the results in direct contradiction to the actual results. Since I am the one that conducted the experiment, explain how you tested the photons leaving my container to see where they came from.

See Planck's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, both of which you are ignoring. Your word games won't work.

There is one small problem with your claim that it is impossible to trap light. Containers to trap light for extended periods of time exist.

It is not possible to trap light.

A New Understanding of How to Trap Light

A newly published study from MIT reveals the mechanism responsible for trapping the light, showing that this trapped state is much more stable than had been thought. Researchers at MIT who succeeded last year in creating a material that could trap light and stop it in its tracks have now develope

scitechdaily.com

Scientists Trapped Light Inside a Metamaterial and Made It 10x More Magnetic

This could open doors to technologies we thought were impossible.

www.popularmechanics.com

Science isn't a magazine.

I see you are angry that your experiment failed because you ignored Stefan-Boltzmann when you set it up.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

If you want honesty, maybe you should start with yourself and correct your lies about what you have said and what I have said.

Your word games won't work.

First step to honesty - Admit that "light" is not restricted to "visible light."

Your word games won't work. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap any frequency of light.

Second step to honesty - Admit that your experiment has no mechanism to tell the source of light that exits the container.

See Planck's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Third step to honesty - Admit that your assumption (after the experiment) of where the light comes from is not a valid conclusion for your experiment.

See Planck's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot trap light.

 

[Into the Night]

More unsupported claims from you about what I said with no evidence of my ever saying it. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claims. Failure to provide evidence is only evidence that you are lying.

A theory of science supports itself. You are simply ignoring them.

Find where I said the light coming from the container was the same light that entered from my flashlight.

Denying your own posts won't work, Poorboy.

The reality is the experiment has no mechanism for telling if it is or isn't We can only tell that light is exiting the container when opened. You make the asinine assumption that I claimed the light was the same when I never once say that. It seems you are so stupid you can't read English, let alone understand it.

Denying your own posts won't work, Poorboy.

By the way, it is possible to "trap" light. Too bad you don't keep up with the science conducted by real scientists.

True Scotsman fallacy. You cannot trap light. You are still denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Planck's law, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.