Hi Doug, you really are getting confused aren’t you, possibly because it is 45 years since you had physics teachers help you to understand physics. I fully appreciate how difficult it can be trying to teach yourself because it is so easy to mislead yourself down a blind alley.
On 4th March at 5:39 pm. you claimed that “ .. within a couple of days .. my 10 page peer-reviewed Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be published .. my paper may be published any moment, as it has already passed peer-review .. ”. Then at 11:58 pm you say “ .. I am also planning to email quite a few professors of physics post-publication, for their comments. I’m very willing to discuss the content with anyone, publicly or privately, but only when I am satisfied that they have studied all ten pages thereof. The same applies for anyone wishing to debate it in forums such as this, though I will probably have to restrict discussion to one particular forum – probably on WUWT .. ”
I gather from this that when you say that your paper has already been peer-reviewed you mean not by recognised physicists but by others with as poor an understanding of the physics as yourself. I also understand that the article (I doubt that it will be recognisable as a peer-reviewed paper) will not be appearing in any respected physics journal. I suspect that Anthony Watts will choose to ignore your pleas for him to have it debated on his blog as he will not want his reputation destroyed.
Sorry to burst your balloon Doug but stick to the day-job(sssss) because you aren’t going to win any part of that Nobel Prize-money that Professor Claes Johnson seems to have his eye on (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/about/amounts.html).
Maybe you should stop pretending to be a physicist and go back to those teaching, software, photographic, “snake-oil” remedy, etc. business ventures of yours – see my comment on 20th February at 4:38 pm.
BTW, how’s your sexy under-ware venture going (http://www.tradinglot.com/en/html/20091012/2009101242834140.html ; http://www.nite-fash.com ; )? (Anyone puzzled by the connection between nite-fasion.com and Doug can find it at http://www.ozbargains.com/ where, surprise surprise, we have Doug advertising his ozmaths.com business, offering “ .. HIGHLY EFFECTIVE MATHS SOFTWARE & PRIVATE MATHS TUITION .. This MATHS SOFTWARE is now on eBay for around $20! .. Private tuition $48 an hour .. I believe that I can claim to be one of the most experienced Maths tutors in Australia, .. I have had many years’ experience as a specialist Maths tutor who first tutored in the 1970′s after majoring in Pure Mathematics at Sydney University. I have been a Principal of a large Coaching College and I have written extensive notes on maths and, more recently, my maths software which has been used by hundreds of students throughout Australia .. Doug Cotton, B.Sc (Math), B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin. Phone: 98733300 .. Location for lessons at 6 Duncan Place (off Baden Powell Place), North Rocks. .. ”).
Do you wonder that I am not prepared to waste my time reading your pseudo-scientific writings?
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to de is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Doug Cotton | March 4, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Reply
Well, Pete, you are of course entitled to your opinions and suspicions about people and organisation, and perhaps you can find fault in the somewhat complex computations which Claes has published, though I find them correct. But none of the above successfully refutes the actual cogent physics argument which I put forward and which is supported by experiments, observations and climate records (including 1000 year solar cycles – see WUWT today) all tying together with what I am saying.
So maybe you could draft out your own paper explaining some alternate reason why a warm gas does not absorb radiation from a cooler emitter.
Below is my argument which you need to refute …
The warmer gas does not absorb and then re-emit. Re-emission in all directions would not fill in the absorption lines observed by the spectrometer because it would not compare in intensity with direct radiation from the source. The radiation from the emitter forms standing waves which run along the same paths as the incident rays, and can thus interfere with them before any absorption takes place.
This has to be the case. Consider a ray of backradiation penetrating a small distance into the ocean. If it were to get converted to thermal energy by absorption, the energy will not be re-emitted straight away via radiation from a few cm/inches under the surface of the ocean. Instead, the warmer water will rise to the surface by convection and at least some of it will evaporate and only some be radiated. There would have been a “completed (macro) transaction” in which that.radiation (from lots of molecules in a cooler atmosphere) warmed (a layer of) water below the surface of the ocean. This clearly would violate the 2nd Law.
Now do you see the difference between this and a standing wave? If there is conversion to thermal energy then there has to have been a violation of the Second Law.