To make the problem much easier to solve we will state that the heat capacities of Body 2 and Body 3 are extremely high.
Where’s Body 1? This picture is the view from Body 1, also known as “Chilly Earth”, which is a spherical solid planet. Model 3A – Three Bodies with the Third Body Being Quite Cold Note that the “period of time” might be anything between seconds and many times the age of the universe – dependent upon the circumstances of the two bodies. It is impossible, for example, for body A to end up at 100☌ and body B at 0☌. Very quickly, to “warm everyone up”, and to once again state the basics – if we have two bodies in a closed system, and body A is at temperature 80☌ and body B is at 10☌, then over a period of time both will end up at the same temperature somewhere between 10☌ and 80☌. Model 2 – Two bodies – The Boring One that Everyone Really Does Agree With But if you just don’t understand the argument of people on “the other side” you can’t offer them any useful assistance.
If you understand why others are wrong you can help explain it to them. So with that introduction, I offer a conceptual model to help those many people who don’t understand how a cold atmosphere can lead to a warmer surface than would occur without the cold atmosphere.Īnd if you are one of those people in the “firmly convinced” camp, let me suggest this reason for making the effort to understand this conceptual model. Until a subject “clicks”, all the mathematical proof in the world is just a jumble of letters. At least, that’s what I have always found. It seems wrong so they keep explaining why it seems wrong.Ĭonceptual problems are the hardest to get around. Just equations of the form a + b = 0.Īnd here’s the reason why – the problem that people have is conceptual. We aren’t talking complex maths here with double integrals or partial differentiation. It should be so easy to do – after all if one of the many systems I have outlined contravenes one of these laws, surely someone can write down the equations for energy conservation (1st law of thermodynamics) or for change in entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) and prove me wrong. One observation on the many contrary claims resulting from my articles – not a single person has provided a mathematical summary to demonstrate that the examples provided contradict the first or second law of thermodynamics. Of course, it could be that I am inconsistent in my application of this principle. Put a hold and cold body together and they tend to come to the same temperature, not move apart in temperature. To take one example from many, in The Real Second Law of Thermodynamics I said: Yes, if anyone was saying that it would be ridiculous.
#THE THREE BODY PROBLEM EPUB FREE FULL#
So if we take bucket A full of water at 80☌ and bucket B full of water at 10☌, Science of Doom is saying that bucket A will heat up because of bucket B? Right! That’s ridiculous and climate science is absurd! Resulting comments on this blog and elsewhere about those articles frequently contain comments of this form: I have written (too) many articles about the second law of thermodynamics – the real and the imaginary version.
Many people trying to understand climate science have a conceptual problem. With apologies to my many patient readers who want to cover more challenging subjects.
0 kommentar(er)
