Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent example demonstrating your cowardice in the face of contrary evidence.....thanks.

Guess in addition to not knowing what zero means...and a boat load of other stuff, I guess you don't know what evidence means either...when a bunch of people accept a statement as fact when there is in fact no EVIDENCE in support of that statement that bunch of people are exhibiting faith.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim....since there are no observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating back radiation, there is no evidence...and here is the clincher...if there were evidence, the second law of thermodynamics would be scrapped, and or rewritten to state that energy moves from both warm to cool and cool to warm. So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool...anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong...and if they are unable to see that...then they are also demonstrably stupid.

And yes...scientists can be wrong...and stupid....the number of times the scientific community has been almost universally wrong on a topic is just about as large as the number of topics.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.

So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool..

It never said that.

anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong

These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.

Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.
How many more times does that have to be explained to you?
I told you at least 3 times that the corona is ionized which means that it can`t absorb with electrons that are not where they need to be in order to absorb
These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.
No scientist ever said that so there is nobody that could be proven wrong except the straw man scientist you just invented.

How many more times does that have to be explained to you?

I want SSDD to explain how cooler matter can emit toward and through hotter matter.
He claims that is impossible. Violates the 2nd Law.
I know it doesn't. You know it doesn't. I want him to admit it doesn't.

No scientist ever said that so

No scientist ever said that matter at equilibrium emits and absorbs at the same time?
SSDD says at equilibrium, matter simply stops emitting.

except the straw man scientist you just invented.

Wilhelm Wien
Max J. Riedl
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff
Roy Spencer
Albert Einstein
Max Planck

Straw men?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.

Where did you ever get that idea?

From what you've been telling us for years, obviously.

Your crank theory states that an object either radiates at full strength towards a colder object, or cuts off radiating instantly and completely if the object is warmer. There's no in-between. Your theory also states the colder object can send absolutely zero energy to the warmer object.

Therefore, your theory states that a 20C thermopile will radiate the same amount away, whether it's pointed at -20C sky or -10C clouds, and that in both cases, it will get nothing back. Hence, your theory states the thermopile with be at the same temperature in both cases.

The notion that the temperature flux between the sensor and the object remains the same no matter how much the two temperatures differ is just stupid and only an idiot would think of it...

Yet it's what you've been screaming at us for years, which means you're self-classifying yourself as an idiot. With this latest flipflop, your theory hasn't gotten any less dumb, and it's now self-contradicting, so it's gotten worse.

I have no theory...I have fact as described by the engineers who design and build the devices...refer above to the handbook of modern sensors...

No, you copied part a correct theory that contradicts your crank theory, and now you're lying big by pretending that the correct theory is actually the same as your crank theory.

We all now agree that the thermopile should lose more heat when pointed at a colder object.

The normal people here can use the S-B equation to show how that happens.

You can't. Your one-way distortion of the S-B equation makes that impossible. Under your theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat in both cases.

If you disagree, simply show us the math. That will be difficult, being you've been doubling down over and over on your incorrect version of the equation, meaning you won't be able to suddenly flipflop to the correct version.

Therefore, your theory states that a 20C thermopile will radiate the same amount away, whether it's pointed at -20C sky or -10C clouds, and that in both cases, it will get nothing back. Hence, your theory states the thermopile with be at the same temperature in both cases.

Not exactly.
He claims the thermopile will radiate more or less, based on the temperature of the target, even though, with no communication from the cooler target, it has no way to measure that target's temperature.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Radiation and heat are not interchangeable terms. Radiation is the gross emission in all directions. Heat is the net energy change, always from cooler to warmer.

Photons are emitted in a random direction, and do not change direction or energy until they interact with a different bit of matter. I realize that you are too stupid to understand this. You are pathetic. Unteachable, unreachable.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. none, nadda, zip, zero all make believe. Dude, I get it, it has to do that for your thought to be correct. just that your thought is not correct because, you have nothing that supports it.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface.

I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
Do you feel such measurements are in error? Why?

you have?

View attachment 122237

sorry, that isn't evidence of anything discussed in here.

We're discussing "observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface".

 

[jc456]

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. none, nadda, zip, zero all make believe. Dude, I get it, it has to do that for your thought to be correct. just that your thought is not correct because, you have nothing that supports it.

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface.

I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
Do you feel such measurements are in error? Why?

you have?

View attachment 122237

sorry, that isn't evidence of anything discussed in here.

We're discussing "observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface".

We're discussing "observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface"

yep, photons. which you still haven't shown. EXACTLY!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and yet, no observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface.

I've posted a graph, multiple times, that shows the measurement of downward LWIR at night.
Do you feel such measurements are in error? Why?

you have?

View attachment 122237

sorry, that isn't evidence of anything discussed in here.

We're discussing "observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface".

We're discussing "observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface"

yep, photons. which you still haven't shown. EXACTLY!

Photons, shown right here.

 

[jc456]

you have?

View attachment 122237

sorry, that isn't evidence of anything discussed in here.

We're discussing "observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface".

We're discussing "observed photons moving from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface"

yep, photons. which you still haven't shown. EXACTLY!

View attachment 122371

Photons, shown right here.

it is? wow, I pictured them looking differently.

 

[polarbear]

Excellent example demonstrating your cowardice in the face of contrary evidence.....thanks.

Guess in addition to not knowing what zero means...and a boat load of other stuff, I guess you don't know what evidence means either...when a bunch of people accept a statement as fact when there is in fact no EVIDENCE in support of that statement that bunch of people are exhibiting faith.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim....since there are no observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating back radiation, there is no evidence...and here is the clincher...if there were evidence, the second law of thermodynamics would be scrapped, and or rewritten to state that energy moves from both warm to cool and cool to warm. So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool...anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong...and if they are unable to see that...then they are also demonstrably stupid.

And yes...scientists can be wrong...and stupid....the number of times the scientific community has been almost universally wrong on a topic is just about as large as the number of topics.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.

So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool..

It never said that.

anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong

These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.

Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.
How many more times does that have to be explained to you?
I told you at least 3 times that the corona is ionized which means that it can`t absorb with electrons that are not where they need to be in order to absorb
These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.
No scientist ever said that so there is nobody that could be proven wrong except the straw man scientist you just invented.

How many more times does that have to be explained to you?

I want SSDD to explain how cooler matter can emit toward and through hotter matter.
He claims that is impossible. Violates the 2nd Law.
I know it doesn't. You know it doesn't. I want him to admit it doesn't.

No scientist ever said that so

No scientist ever said that matter at equilibrium emits and absorbs at the same time?
SSDD says at equilibrium, matter simply stops emitting.

except the straw man scientist you just invented.

Wilhelm Wien
Max J. Riedl
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff
Roy Spencer
Albert Einstein
Max Planck

Straw men?

All over sudden you deemed it necessary to change your statement in your post # 193 from this:
These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.

To this
No scientist ever said that matter at equilibrium emits and absorbs at the same time?
SSDD says at equilibrium, matter simply stops emitting.
except the straw man scientist you just invented.
Wilhelm Wien
Max J. Riedl
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff
Roy Spencer
Albert Einstein
Max Planck
Straw men?
Which is something entirely different.
You have been boasting that these scientists have said "energy moves from same to same".
Show me a quote from Einstein then, his statement saying so should be the easiest because he is the most published one on your list. But Planck, Kirchhoff or Wien will do as well.
And you still insist that the ionized corona absorbs photons from the cooler surface.
Prove it! You can't but keep pretending...
And every time you are confronted you "answer" with a foolish question that is supposed to score a "win" for the nonsense statement you made in the first place if adults refuse to play along with these childish games in your kiddie physics sandbox...not much different from mammiemoh

 

[SSDD]

Not only do you posit intelligent photons ... you posit an intelligent universe! In your deranged dimension, every atom literally knows the state of every other atom in the universe, and radiates accordingly.

Poor hairball...what must it be like to be that f'ing stupid?

Here, let me help you out just so it can never be said that I deliberately left an idiot to wallow in her ignorance...

This is the SB equation one uses when the radiator in question is not in a vacuum.

It states, specifically, that the amount of radiation (P) emitted by a radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant, times its area, times the difference between its own temperature to the 4th power and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power. Unfortunate that you are so lacking in math skills that you can't read even a simple equation like that...but don't worry, you have lots of company here who are equally wanting in basic math skills.

So lets run a few numbers and see what the SB LAW...this is a physical law we are talking about here has to say about the amount of radiation emitted by an object under different circumstances...

For the purpose of this explanation, we are going to make the emissivity of the object 1 and it is going to be 1 square meter in size...

Example 1: lets make the temperature of the object 78F and its surroundings 35F. Plug those numbers into the SB equation and you will see that the object will be radiating 344.84w/m2

Example 2: lets make the temperature of the object 105F and its surroundings 35F. Plug the numbers into the SB equation and you will see that the object will be radiating 425.12w/m2

Example 3: Lets make the temperature of the object 105F and its surroundings 105F. Plug the numbers into the SB equation and you will see that the object will be radiating 0w/m2

Now feel free to deny the physical law all you like...feel free to believe whatever you like...after all, you are a top shelf wack job.

The most hilarious thing? You expect to be taken seriously.

Imagine...being so stupid as to think that accepting the answer a physical law is hilarious. How stupid must you be...and how much your cult beliefs must have warped you in order for you to laugh at physical laws.

How do you suppose they ever got to be physical laws if the equations associated with them do not produce predictable, reliable, measurable results every time?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent example demonstrating your cowardice in the face of contrary evidence.....thanks.

Guess in addition to not knowing what zero means...and a boat load of other stuff, I guess you don't know what evidence means either...when a bunch of people accept a statement as fact when there is in fact no EVIDENCE in support of that statement that bunch of people are exhibiting faith.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim....since there are no observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating back radiation, there is no evidence...and here is the clincher...if there were evidence, the second law of thermodynamics would be scrapped, and or rewritten to state that energy moves from both warm to cool and cool to warm. So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool...anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong...and if they are unable to see that...then they are also demonstrably stupid.

And yes...scientists can be wrong...and stupid....the number of times the scientific community has been almost universally wrong on a topic is just about as large as the number of topics.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.

So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool..

It never said that.

anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong

These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.

Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.
How many more times does that have to be explained to you?
I told you at least 3 times that the corona is ionized which means that it can`t absorb with electrons that are not where they need to be in order to absorb
These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.
No scientist ever said that so there is nobody that could be proven wrong except the straw man scientist you just invented.

How many more times does that have to be explained to you?

I want SSDD to explain how cooler matter can emit toward and through hotter matter.
He claims that is impossible. Violates the 2nd Law.
I know it doesn't. You know it doesn't. I want him to admit it doesn't.

No scientist ever said that so

No scientist ever said that matter at equilibrium emits and absorbs at the same time?
SSDD says at equilibrium, matter simply stops emitting.

except the straw man scientist you just invented.

Wilhelm Wien
Max J. Riedl
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff
Roy Spencer
Albert Einstein
Max Planck

Straw men?

All over sudden you deemed it necessary to change your statement in your post # 193 from this:
These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.

To this
No scientist ever said that matter at equilibrium emits and absorbs at the same time?
SSDD says at equilibrium, matter simply stops emitting.
except the straw man scientist you just invented.
Wilhelm Wien
Max J. Riedl
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff
Roy Spencer
Albert Einstein
Max Planck
Straw men?
Which is something entirely different.
You have been boasting that these scientists have said "energy moves from same to same".
Show me a quote from Einstein then, his statement saying so should be the easiest because he is the most published one on your list. But Planck, Kirchhoff or Wien will do as well.
And you still insist that the ionized corona absorbs photons from the cooler surface.
Prove it! You can't but keep pretending...
And every time you are confronted you "answer" with a foolish question that is supposed to score a "win" for the nonsense statement you made in the first place if adults refuse to play along with these childish games in your kiddie physics sandbox...not much different from mammiemoh

These scientists said energy moves from same to same.

Yes, we're talking about temperature. I understand that photons move from hotter matter to cooler matter, from cooler matter to hotter matter and even, hold on to your seat.....between matter of the SAME temperature.

You have been boasting that these scientists have said "energy moves from same to same".

Yup. At equilibrium, objects are at the same temperature.

And you still insist that the ionized corona absorbs photons from the cooler surface.

What I said was the cooler surface emits toward and through the hotter matter of the corona.
Do you agree?
I said that did not violate the 2nd Law.
Do you agree?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent example demonstrating your cowardice in the face of contrary evidence.....thanks.

Guess in addition to not knowing what zero means...and a boat load of other stuff, I guess you don't know what evidence means either...when a bunch of people accept a statement as fact when there is in fact no EVIDENCE in support of that statement that bunch of people are exhibiting faith.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim....since there are no observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating back radiation, there is no evidence...and here is the clincher...if there were evidence, the second law of thermodynamics would be scrapped, and or rewritten to state that energy moves from both warm to cool and cool to warm. So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool...anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong...and if they are unable to see that...then they are also demonstrably stupid.

And yes...scientists can be wrong...and stupid....the number of times the scientific community has been almost universally wrong on a topic is just about as large as the number of topics.

Evidence would be observations, measurements, or experiments demonstrating the claim

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.

So long as the second law says that energy only moves from warm to cool..

It never said that.

anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong

These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.

Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

We've observed and measured radiation from the cooler surface of the Sun that has emitted toward and through the hotter corona. It seems that your claim, "cooler matter never emits toward hotter matter" has been disproven.
How many more times does that have to be explained to you?
I told you at least 3 times that the corona is ionized which means that it can`t absorb with electrons that are not where they need to be in order to absorb
These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.
No scientist ever said that so there is nobody that could be proven wrong except the straw man scientist you just invented.

How many more times does that have to be explained to you?

I want SSDD to explain how cooler matter can emit toward and through hotter matter.
He claims that is impossible. Violates the 2nd Law.
I know it doesn't. You know it doesn't. I want him to admit it doesn't.

No scientist ever said that so

No scientist ever said that matter at equilibrium emits and absorbs at the same time?
SSDD says at equilibrium, matter simply stops emitting.

except the straw man scientist you just invented.

Wilhelm Wien
Max J. Riedl
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff
Roy Spencer
Albert Einstein
Max Planck

Straw men?

All over sudden you deemed it necessary to change your statement in your post # 193 from this:
These scientists said energy moves from same to same. Prove them wrong.

To this
No scientist ever said that matter at equilibrium emits and absorbs at the same time?
SSDD says at equilibrium, matter simply stops emitting.
except the straw man scientist you just invented.
Wilhelm Wien
Max J. Riedl
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff
Roy Spencer
Albert Einstein
Max Planck
Straw men?
Which is something entirely different.
You have been boasting that these scientists have said "energy moves from same to same".
Show me a quote from Einstein then, his statement saying so should be the easiest because he is the most published one on your list. But Planck, Kirchhoff or Wien will do as well.
And you still insist that the ionized corona absorbs photons from the cooler surface.
Prove it! You can't but keep pretending...
And every time you are confronted you "answer" with a foolish question that is supposed to score a "win" for the nonsense statement you made in the first place if adults refuse to play along with these childish games in your kiddie physics sandbox...not much different from mammiemoh

question that is supposed to score a "win" for the nonsense statement you made in the first place if adults refuse to play along

Is SSDD supposed to be an adult in these threads? LOL!
That's hilarious.

It states, specifically, that the amount of radiation (P) emitted by a radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant, times its area, times the difference between its own temperature to the 4th power and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power. Unfortunate that you are so lacking in math skills that you can't read even a simple equation like that...but don't worry, you have lots of company here who are equally wanting in basic math skills.

Do you think matter has a dimmer switch that allows it to emit faster or slower, depending on its surroundings?
Or is the gain or loss of energy due to the sum of energy in and energy out?
Unless my question is too foolish for you to answer?

 

[SSDD]

Do you think matter has a dimmer switch that allows it to emit faster or slower, depending on its surroundings?

Seems that you are unable to work your way through the basic math also. You and the hairball...a match made in Heaven. Here....let me help you out. Here is the SB equation one uses when the radiator is not in a vacuum.

Lets make the object the same size and give it the same emissivity as in the examples I gave the hairball...but this time, lets leave the temperature of the object the same and alter the temperature of its surroundings.

Example 1: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is zero...the object is radiating at 1374.87w/m2

Example 2: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 25F.....the object is radiating at 1191.29w/m2

Example 3: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 85F...the object is radiating at 825.75w/m2

Example 4: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 218F...the object is radiating at 317.26w/m2

Example 5: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 249F...the object is radiating at 244.58w/m2

Example 6: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 250F....the object is radiating at 0w/m2

Now if you can show me some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence of net radiation exchange as opposed to gross energy exchange by all means, let me see it because God knows, I have looked. And a mathematical model, or the say so of someone who also can't provide observed, measured, quantified evidence of net vs gross energy exchange is no better than your own say so. So good luck.

 

[SSDD]

According to your 'tard theory, the thermopile loses the same amount of heat no matter which way you point it, so long it's pointed at something cooler.

Where did you ever get that idea?

From what you've been telling us for years, obviously.

Here you go hairball...just a few more examples of how stupid you are...and how wrong you have been all along.

HERE, from May of 2016

You said: "And since the temperature changes only because radiation from a colder object is hitting it, your attempted evasion there makes no sense, and you're still left with your crap theory getting debunked."

To which I said: " Idiot....the temperature change resulting from measuring a cooler object is due to the thermopile cooling off at a faster rate...not because energy from the cool object is radiating to the thermopile...



HERE from December 2016

You said: "As is usual with you, that makes zero sense. How is the thermopile supposed to change temperature if it doesn't absorb the IR from the cold surface?
You're just one seriously stupid human being."

To which I said: "You really are stupid aren't you?....when the lens in front of the thermometer focuses on a cooler object, the thermopile starts cooling off....energy moves from warm to cool and the amount and rate of change of the thermopile is run through a calculation and a temperature is derived...

To which you said: "No, not a chance, given the instantaneous change in the output. Objects simply don't radiate away that quickly. You're just delusional."

To which I said: "How long do you think it takes to for a thermopile to decrease by 5 or 6 hundredths of a degree?... The stupidity just never stops with you does it...if it is pointing at a warmer object, a thinking person would figure out that the temperature of the thermopile would be increasing....the rate of change from a particular temperature is what the internal computer uses to calculate temperature...not absolute temperature..."

This one isn't from you, but it is a fine example of someone who, like you, thinks he knows it all, but is just as wrong as you have been all along....so you don't have to feel so all alone in your ignorance.

HERE from December 2015

FLACALTENN said: "And radiation from your freezer IS coming out -- IS focused by lens -- and IS delivered to the photosensors that then measure an electric current corresponding to the number of IR photons received per unit time.."

To which I said: "Sorry guy...it isn't... in the case of objects that are warmer, the thermopile warms up and that results in a voltage which is then converted into a temperature...if the object is cooler, the focus of the lens results in the thermopile cooling down which also results in a voltage which is then converted into a temperature...the whole thing is operating based on a mathematical formula assigned to a voltage that results from the thermopile warming or cooling...or not changing at all."

HERE from way back in November 2014:

Not sure which one of the usual gaggle I was talking to

I said: "point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss.."

And I could go on. There are plenty of examples...I have been saying the same thing all along while you and yours, and the luke warmers have been claiming exactly the opposite...that the thermopile was measuring incoming cooler radiation from the colder object.

And I don't find it surprising in the least that at long last after you have figured out how wrong you have been that you would try to pretend that you have been right all along and that at long last I have come around to agreeing with you. You prove once again that you have a complete lack of any sort of character...you are as fundamentally dishonest as a person can get.

If you would like to see more examples of me being right and you being wrong, just ask and I will be happy to bring them forward...although I doubt that you have the character to even respond to this post. My bet is that you will scurry away and show up on some other thread claiming to have known how such instruments work all along...to which I will have to return to this thread and bring the evidence forward again that you didn't have a clue till you finally realized that I was right and you were wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think matter has a dimmer switch that allows it to emit faster or slower, depending on its surroundings?

Seems that you are unable to work your way through the basic math also. You and the hairball...a match made in Heaven. Here....let me help you out. Here is the SB equation one uses when the radiator is not in a vacuum.

Lets make the object the same size and give it the same emissivity as in the examples I gave the hairball...but this time, lets leave the temperature of the object the same and alter the temperature of its surroundings.

Example 1: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is zero...the object is radiating at 1374.87w/m2

Example 2: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 25F.....the object is radiating at 1191.29w/m2

Example 3: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 85F...the object is radiating at 825.75w/m2

Example 4: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 218F...the object is radiating at 317.26w/m2

Example 5: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 249F...the object is radiating at 244.58w/m2

Example 6: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 250F....the object is radiating at 0w/m2

Now if you can show me some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence of net radiation exchange as opposed to gross energy exchange by all means, let me see it because God knows, I have looked. And a mathematical model, or the say so of someone who also can't provide observed, measured, quantified evidence of net vs gross energy exchange is no better than your own say so. So good luck.

Example 1: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is zero...the object is radiating at 1374.87w/m2

Is that what it radiates, or is that its net loss?
You'll claim it has a dimmer switch and emits less if its surroundings are warmer.
You just can't explain how, if the surroundings emit no photons toward the object, how it can know the temperature of those surroundings so it can decide how much to radiate.

Your theory violates causality.

Example 6: The object is radiating at 250F and the temperature of its surroundings is 250F....the object is radiating at 0w/m2

Planck (1914, page 40)[4] refers to a condition of thermodynamic equilibrium, in which “any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other.”

Radiative equilibrium

Max Planck thought bodies in equilibrium exchange equal amounts of heat.
Who discovered this Nobel Prize winner was wrong? It must have caused a lot of excitement.

Unless you're the only one who figured out that everything known about equilibrium up until a few years ago was wrong?

Are you the only one? Seriously?

 

[SSDD]

Is that what it radiates, or is that its net loss?

The equation says that it is a gross energy movement...in order for it to be a net movement, some part of the equation has to make a statement about energy gained...that is, what net means...some gain..some loss...net is the amount left over...the equation only describes energy loss...therefore it is a gross energy movement. This isn't my theory...it is simply what the physical law says. Net is an assumption not supported by the physical law itself or by any observed, measured, quantified physical evidence.

You'll claim it has a dimmer switch and emits less if its surroundings are warmer.

I don't make any claim at all...I am simply stating what the physical law says. You, on the other hand are making claims that are other than what the physical law says.

You just can't explain how, if the surroundings emit no photons toward the object, how it can know the temperature of those surroundings so it can decide how much to radiate.

I don't have to explain...it is simply as statement of a physical law. Just as if I know the mass of two objects, and the distance they are apart it is possible to accurately and predictably calculate the gravitational pull between the two...Or I can calculate amount of gravitational pull between the earth and an object that I have dropped which would allow me to calculate its rate of acceleration. These things can be calculated and predicted with fine precision even though we don't know how gravity works...we don't need to know how it works in order to know what it does...and I don't need to know exactly why energy only moves from warm to cool...all I need to know is what the physical law predicts and to know that the physical law always makes accurate predictions...that is how it got to be physical law.

Your theory violates causality

Take it up with Stefan and Boltzman...and the people who let the SB law remain a physical law. If there were any actual evidence in existence that the law was incorrect, then the law would be overturned and replaced. Let me know when that happens.

Max Planck thought bodies in equilibrium exchange equal amounts of heat.Who discovered this Nobel Prize winner was wrong? It must have caused a lot of excitement.

Algore got a nobel prize as well...you aren't going to hold up a nobel prize as evidence that the prize was deserved are you?

Unless you're the only one who figured out that everything known about equilibrium up until a few years ago was wrong?

Again..I am just stating what the physical law says....if you can overturn the law and have it replaced with something more to your liking...all you have to do is prove that it is wrong.

Are you the only one? Seriously?

No...not at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that what it radiates, or is that its net loss?

The equation says that it is a gross energy movement...in order for it to be a net movement, some part of the equation has to make a statement about energy gained...that is, what net means...some gain..some loss...net is the amount left over...the equation only describes energy loss...therefore it is a gross energy movement. This isn't my theory...it is simply what the physical law says.

You'll claim it has a dimmer switch and emits less if its surroundings are warmer.

I don't make any claim at all...I am simply stating what the physical law says. You, on the other hand are making claims that are other than what the physical law says.

You just can't explain how, if the surroundings emit no photons toward the object, how it can know the temperature of those surroundings so it can decide how much to radiate.

I don't have to explain...it is simply as statement of a physical law. Just as if I know the mass of two objects, and the distance they are apart it is possible to accurately and predictably calculate the gravitational pull between the two...Or I can calculate amount of gravitational pull between the earth and an object that I have dropped which would allow me to calculate its rate of acceleration. These things can be calculated and predicted with fine precision even though we don't know how gravity works...we don't need to know how it works in order to know what it does...and I don't need to know exactly why energy only moves from warm to cool...all I need to know is what the physical law predicts and to know that the physical law always makes accurate predictions...that is how it got to be physical law.

Your theory violates causality

Take it up with Stefan and Boltzman...and the people who let the SB law remain a physical law. If there were any actual evidence in existence that the law was incorrect, then the law would be overturned and replaced. Let me know when that happens.

Max Planck thought bodies in equilibrium exchange equal amounts of heat.Who discovered this Nobel Prize winner was wrong? It must have caused a lot of excitement.

Algore got a nobel prize as well...you aren't going to hold up a nobel prize as evidence that the prize was deserved are you?

Unless you're the only one who figured out that everything known about equilibrium up until a few years ago was wrong?

Again..I am just stating what the physical law says....if you can overturn the law and have it replaced with something more to your liking...all you have to do is prove that it is wrong.

Are you the only one? Seriously?

No...not at all.

This isn't my theory...it is simply what the physical law says.

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

I don't make any claim at all...I am simply stating what the physical law says.

The physical law doesn't say that objects at equilibrium stop emitting. That's your confusion.

I don't have to explain...it is simply as statement of a physical law.

The physical law doesn't say you can violate causality, that objects can transmit their temperature without emitting photons, that's just your confusion.

If there were any actual evidence in existence that the law was incorrect, then the law would be overturned and replaced. Let me know when that happens.

And if you can show that objects above 0K stop emitting, based on their surroundings, you'd post
someone that agreed with you. Or that two objects at equilibrium both stop emitting, you'd post someone that agreed with you. So you let me know when that that happens.

Algore got a nobel prize as well

Not for physics you stupid twat.

Again..I am just stating what the physical law says

Great, now provide some links of people who agree with your misinterpretation.

Are you the only one? Seriously?

No...not at all.

Excellent. Show me.

 

[SSDD]

This isn't my theory...it is simply what the physical law says.

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

Really? Tell me what this equation says...describe where you believe it says anything about the radiator gaining energy from its surroundings.

The physical law doesn't say that objects at equilibrium stop emitting. That's your confusion.

And it doesn't say they don't....Set T and Tc to the same temperature...what does that make P? That is what the physical law says..and that is all that the law says...anything else is opinion not stated in the physical law.

And if you can show that objects above 0K stop emitting, based on their surroundings, you'd post
someone that agreed with you. Or that two objects at equilibrium both stop emitting, you'd post someone that agreed with you. So you let me know when that that happens.

I am posting the physical law...what more do I need? When the law changes, then I will change along with it.

Great, now provide some links of people who agree with your misinterpretation.

I am not misinterpreting...The eqauation says what I have said that it says...if you think the equation says something else, then say want it says and point out where it says it. If you have the math skills to even begin...that is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This isn't my theory...it is simply what the physical law says.

Yes, your misinterpretation is amusing.

Really? Tell me what this equation says...describe where you believe it says anything about the radiator gaining energy from its surroundings.

The physical law doesn't say that objects at equilibrium stop emitting. That's your confusion.

And it doesn't say they don't....Set T and Tc to the same temperature...what does that make P? That is what the physical law says..and that is all that the law says...anything else is opinion not stated in the physical law.

And if you can show that objects above 0K stop emitting, based on their surroundings, you'd post
someone that agreed with you. Or that two objects at equilibrium both stop emitting, you'd post someone that agreed with you. So you let me know when that that happens.

I am posting the physical law...what more do I need? When the law changes, then I will change along with it.

Great, now provide some links of people who agree with your misinterpretation.

I am not misinterpreting...The eqauation says what I have said that it says...if you think the equation says something else, then say want it says and point out where it says it. If you have the math skills to even begin...that is.

Really? Tell me what this equation says...describe where you believe it says anything about the radiator gaining energy from its surroundings.

Yes, that says the net energy loss of the radiator can be calculated by taking into account the energy gained from the surroundings.

And it doesn't say they don't...

Great, now you can just show where all those scientists discussing equilibrium were wrong.
Should be easy, it was only Planck and Einstein, among others. Chop chop!!

I am posting the physical law...what more do I need?

Someone, anyone, that agrees explicitly with your misinterpretation.

I am not misinterpreting...

Great, give me a list of links, textbooks, anything that says objects at equilibrium don't emit.
That matter above 0K ever stops emitting.

Because you're the only person I've ever seen make both those claims.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, that says the net energy loss of the radiator can be calculated by taking into account the energy gained from the surroundings.

Does it? Really? It is hard to fail to notice that you didn't even attempt to state what the equation actually says... Again, you use the word net...net has a specific mathematical meaning....and in mathematics, in order to calculate net you must have an expression for income and an expression for outgoing... Like it or not, that is just the way it is...clearly in the first equation I gave you, there was no expression for income...it was all outgoing. But just to be sure, lets look at the mathematical expression for the SB law itself. That is to say the mathematical expression from which all the others are derived.

Care to show me anywhere in that equation that might be assumed to express incoming energy....from anywhere?

We both know that you can't...and now we both know that you can't even read the equation, much less make comments as to what it says or means...your claim of net is just what you think...or perhaps what you think it should say...or wish it said...or imagine that it says..

What it doesn't say is anything at all about net energy exchange. Wish all you like...deny all you like but none of it will change what the expression itself says.

Great, now you can just show where all those scientists discussing equilibrium were wrong.
Should be easy, it was only Planck and Einstein, among others. Chop chop!!

So now it is clear that you don't know what equilibrium means either. Ever bothered to look up the word?

equilibrium - a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces.
a stable condition in which forces cancel one another

Someone, anyone, that agrees explicitly with your misinterpretation.

I am not misinterpreting anything at all...and at this point, it is clear that your complaint is nothing more than that you just don't like what the physical law says...if you had the basic math skills required to read the equation...and I were mistaken...then you would have pointed out where I went wrong. It is funny for someone who is unable to read an equation and state what it says to claim that someone who can is wrong. You are no more than a poser who likes to talk but can't demonstrate the skills you pretend to have when put to the question..

Great, give me a list of links, textbooks, anything that says objects at equilibrium don't emit.

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis: Goody and Yung
Radiative Heat Transfer: Modest
Radiative Transfer: Chandrasekhar
3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres: Marshak-Davis
An Introduction to Radiative Transfer: Peraiah

That matter above 0K ever stops emitting.

Close, but no cigar...matter above 0K in a vacuum never stops emitting according to its size, emissivity, and its temperature. That is what the equation above means. I even took the time to email the question to a group of top shelf physicists when I was having this discussion with Ian...they unanimously agreed that the first expression of the SB equation (above) describes an object radiating in a vacuum...the second expression, in the above post describes an object not in a vacuum. So the SB law says that an object in a vacuum radiates according to its size, its emissivity and its temperature...an object not in a vacuum radiates according to its size, its emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature an the temperature of its surroundings. The physical law says nothing about net as there is no expression describing incoming radiation....unless of course you care to show me that expression in the equations.

Net is a product of post modern science which places more value on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models than it does on observation and measurement....which is why you find that you can provide no actual observation, or measurement of net energy flow. It only exists in mathematical models.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, that says the net energy loss of the radiator can be calculated by taking into account the energy gained from the surroundings.

Does it? Really? It is hard to fail to notice that you didn't even attempt to state what the equation actually says... Again, you use the word net...net has a specific mathematical meaning....and in mathematics, in order to calculate net you must have an expression for income and an expression for outgoing... Like it or not, that is just the way it is...clearly in the first equation I gave you, there was no expression for income...it was all outgoing. But just to be sure, lets look at the mathematical expression for the SB law itself. That is to say the mathematical expression from which all the others are derived.

Care to show me anywhere in that equation that might be assumed to express incoming energy....from anywhere?

We both know that you can't...and now we both know that you can't even read the equation, much less make comments as to what it says or means...your claim of net is just what you think...or perhaps what you think it should say...or wish it said...or imagine that it says..

What it doesn't say is anything at all about net energy exchange. Wish all you like...deny all you like but none of it will change what the expression itself says.

Great, now you can just show where all those scientists discussing equilibrium were wrong.
Should be easy, it was only Planck and Einstein, among others. Chop chop!!

So now it is clear that you don't know what equilibrium means either. Ever bothered to look up the word?

equilibrium - a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces.
a stable condition in which forces cancel one another

Someone, anyone, that agrees explicitly with your misinterpretation.

I am not misinterpreting anything at all...and at this point, it is clear that your complaint is nothing more than that you just don't like what the physical law says...if you had the basic math skills required to read the equation...and I were mistaken...then you would have pointed out where I went wrong. It is funny for someone who is unable to read an equation and state what it says to claim that someone who can is wrong. You are no more than a poser who likes to talk but can't demonstrate the skills you pretend to have when put to the question..

Great, give me a list of links, textbooks, anything that says objects at equilibrium don't emit.

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis: Goody and Yung
Radiative Heat Transfer: Modest
Radiative Transfer: Chandrasekhar
3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres: Marshak-Davis
An Introduction to Radiative Transfer: Peraiah

That matter above 0K ever stops emitting.

Close, but no cigar...matter above 0K in a vacuum never stops emitting according to its size, emissivity, and its temperature. That is what the equation above means. I even took the time to email the question to a group of top shelf physicists when I was having this discussion with Ian...they unanimously agreed that the first expression of the SB equation (above) describes an object radiating in a vacuum...the second expression, in the above post describes an object not in a vacuum. So the SB law says that an object in a vacuum radiates according to its size, its emissivity and its temperature...an object not in a vacuum radiates according to its size, its emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature an the temperature of its surroundings. The physical law says nothing about net as there is no expression describing incoming radiation....unless of course you care to show me that expression in the equations.

Net is a product of post modern science which places more value on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models than it does on observation and measurement....which is why you find that you can provide no actual observation, or measurement of net energy flow. It only exists in mathematical models.

Does it? Really?

Until you show proof that the cooler object stops emitting, yes, really.

Care to show me anywhere in that equation that might be assumed to express incoming energy....from anywhere?

You have to add the result of the identical equation for the cooler object.
Because the cooler object emits, as long as it's above 0K, despite your confusion.

Just as the Sun's surface emits, even though the corona is much hotter.

So now it is clear that you don't know what equilibrium means either.

Using your definition, how is Planck or Einstein wrong?

equilibrium - a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces.
a stable condition in which forces cancel one another

Thanks. Lessons always work best when you disprove your own claim. DERP.

In this case, the equal, opposing forces is the radiation from each object.

Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis: Goody and Yung
Radiative Heat Transfer: Modest
Radiative Transfer: Chandrasekhar
3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres: Marshak-Davis
An Introduction to Radiative Transfer: Peraiah

Thanks. So where is the passage where they said objects at equilibrium don't emit?

Close, but no cigar...matter above 0K in a vacuum never stops emitting according to its size, emissivity, and its temperature. That is what the equation above means.

You just have to prove that at a certain size, emissivity, or temperature (above 0K) it stops emitting.

an object not in a vacuum radiates according to its size, its emissivity, and the difference between its own temperature an the temperature of its surroundings.

How does the object know the temperature of its surroundings, so it can use that dimmer switch to adjust its emissions? Does it guess? Telepathy maybe?

 

[SSDD]

Does it? Really?

Until you show proof that the cooler object stops emitting, yes, really.

The physical law says that if the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings are the same, then P=0...since you are claiming that something else happens, the onus is on you to provide some proof that they continue to radiate.

You have to add the result of the identical equation for the cooler object.

So you have to leave the physical law and do something that it doesn't prescribe...in short, you have to make it up...

Using your definition, how is Planck or Einstein wrong?

Not my definition.

Thanks. Lessons always work best when you disprove your own claim. DERP.

And even when given a definition, you still miss the boat...

Thanks. So where is the passage where they said objects at equilibrium don't emit?

Says so right there in the equation...I am afraid that explanations of physics and physical laws don't come in pre school editions...they assume that you at least can read a simple mathematical equation...you can't...

You just have to prove that at a certain size, emissivity, or temperature (above 0K) it stops emitting.

The SB law says that they stop emitting...since you are stating something other than what the physical law says...the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary...and I can't help but notice that after all this time, you have yet to provide even the first observation, or measurement supporting what you believe. That should clue you in.

How does the object know the temperature of its surroundings, so it can use that dimmer switch to adjust its emissions? Does it guess? Telepathy maybe?

Why do you assume that in order to obey the laws of physics that objects must be sentient? Do you think that everything that obeys laws of physics somehow knows how it must act? Do chemicals somehow know which other chemicals they can react with?..and on and on...Strange that you would accept that everything in nature obeys the laws of physics unthinkingly except for radiators and radiation and somehow they are free agents, not subject to any law and therefore get to decide what they will or won't do.