Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The physical law says that if the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings are the same, then P=0...

Yes, net radiated power is zero.

So you have to leave the physical law and do something that it doesn't prescribe...

The physical law describes the hotter as well as the cooler object.

Not my definition.

Using your misinterpretation of the real definition, explain why Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.


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

The definition you provided refuted your claim. Still funny.

Says so right there in the equation...

We're not talking about the equation, we're talking about your claim that those textbooks said matter at equilibrium stops emitting. So provide the passage in each that backs up your claim. LOL!

The SB law says that they stop emitting...

Nice story bro. So provide a passage from a real source that says they stop emitting.
Should be easy....if you're right.

Why do you assume that in order to obey the laws of physics that objects must be sentient?

Why do you assume an object can discover the temperature of another object without photons?

To sum up, your confusion is in the meaning of P.
You feel it means power radiated, when actually it means net power radiated.

 

[polarbear]

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?

That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.
Now for the nth time about this energy transfer using the StB equation to make a case for back radiation.
Which is according to you represented by the Wikipedia image you copied and pasted:

And according to you Herr Boltzmann allegedly said the (colder)T^4 s the "back radiation" component.
Do you think that Boltzmann was as stupid as somebody who would say so and not consider the spatial orientation of these 2 bodies ?
All of area A can only be assigned to the body that is totally surrounded by a spherical absorber only then does it get all the P from (hotter)T. Only then, (when it`s a sphere) does the distance between the 2 not have to be specified.
Do you see a provision for the distance in that equation, if so then you are hallucinating.
So since no distance is specified that means the (colder)T is a sphere and in that case only 1/2 of (colder) T is radiating at the hotter body. Unless you have stupid photons that behave the way you think they do.
If you wanted all of the (colder)T radiation the way you abuse that equation then the colder body would have to be inside the sphere of the hotter one. Unless you can come up with a spacial orientation that allows for both of them to be at 2 different places at the same time then you are clueless what the StB equation is all about.
Just as clueless as what Einstein`s equation E=mc^2 is all about...according to you it`s the same as E=1/2mv^2
I`m sure you`ll never run out of stupid questions and keep going on with your corona nonsense argument because you can`t figure out why an (ionized) plasma won`t absorb all the photons emitted by the cooler surface of the sun

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.
Now for the nth time about this energy transfer using the StB equation to make a case for back radiation.
Which is according to you represented by the Wikipedia image you copied and pasted:

And according to you Herr Boltzmann allegedly said the (colder)T^4 s the "back radiation" component.
Do you think that Boltzmann was as stupid as somebody who would say so and not consider the spatial orientation of these 2 bodies ?
All of area A can only be assigned to the body that is totally surrounded by a spherical absorber only then does it get all the P from (hotter)T. Only then, (when it`s a sphere) does the distance between the 2 not have to be specified.
Do you see a provision for the distance in that equation, if so then you are hallucinating.
So since no distance is specified that means the (colder)T is a sphere and in that case only 1/2 of (colder) T is radiating at the hotter body. Unless you have stupid photons that behave the way you think they do.
If you wanted all of the (colder)T radiation the way you abuse that equation then the colder body would have to be inside the sphere of the hotter one. Unless you can come up with a spacial orientation that allows for both of them to be at 2 different places at the same time then you are clueless what the StB equation is all about.
Just as clueless as what Einstein`s equation E=mc^2 is all about...according to you it`s the same as E=1/2mv^2
I`m sure you`ll never run out of stupid questions and keep going on with your corona nonsense argument because you can`t figure out why it won`t absorb all the photons emitted by the cooler surface of the sun

That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.

How else do you explain SSDD's theory?

And according to you Herr Boltzmann allegedly said the (colder)T^4 s the "back radiation" component.

The emission of the colder object applies to any 2 objects, not just the atmosphere and the surface.

Do you think that Boltzmann was as stupid as somebody who would say so and not consider the spatial orientation of these 2 bodies ?

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

I`m sure you`ll never run out of stupid questions and keep going on with your corona nonsense argument

It's only nonsense based on SSDD's confusion.
Do you feel the Earth's atmosphere can't or won't radiate toward the warmer surface?

 

[SSDD]

That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.

How else do you explain SSDD's theory?

Again...not my theory...simply what the physical law says...I accept it literally..it is you who doesn't...it is you who is in opposition to the physical law...it is you who needs to show some observed, measured, quantified evidence that it is in error...simply claiming that I am misinterpreting implies that there is actual observed, and measured evidence out there that proves I am misinterpreting...lets see it.

The emission of the colder object applies to any 2 objects, not just the atmosphere and the surface.

Close again...The temperature of the colder object(s) applies in any two objects...or any number of objects...it says so right there in the equation...the radiation emitted by the warmer object is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings. That is what the law says...the only mention of emission in the physical law is the emission of the warmer object...anything else is your opinion and not stated in the physical law. It isn't which is why you have no actual evidence with which to slap me down...you just have schoolboy misunderstandings, wishes, and juvenile one liners...and that's all.

It's only nonsense based on SSDD's confusion.

I can't help but notice that you still haven't shown me where specifically I have misinterpreted the equations associated with the physical law...I have shown you the equation showing the behavior of the object in a vacuum and the equation that is to be used when the object is not in a vacuum and in the presence of other matter...you claim that I have misinterpreted but haven't shown me anywhere in the equation where I am wrong...nor have you shown me any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

Do you feel the Earth's atmosphere can't or won't radiate toward the warmer surface?

Can you show a measured instance of radiation in so called greenhouse gas frequencies from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface not made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere?...which isn't actually a measurement of energy moving from cool to warm...it is a measurement of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an instrument right next to the cooled one and you won't measure any radiation from the cooler atmosphere at all.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, net radiated power is zero.

Net...when there is no mathematical expression in the physical law from which you can derive net? If net was the issue, don't you think it would be included in the physical law, and the equations associated with it?

The physical law describes the hotter as well as the cooler object.

Of course it does...there is an expression for the cooler object..it is Tc^4. And right there in the equation it describes explicitly what effect the cooler object has on the warmer...it sates in no uncertain terms that the difference between the cooler object (Tc^4) and the warmer object (T^4) determines the amount of radiation (P) emitted by the radiator...and that is all it says... If there were more, then the equation would say that there is more. Anything beyond the equation describing the physical law is not part of the physical law. It is fiction.

Using your misinterpretation of the real definition, explain why Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.

The weren't...equilibrium means nothing is happening....opposing forces have canceled each other out. You ASSUME that equilibrium means that each is absorbing the same amount of radiation...that isn't what the equation says because there is no expression in the equation from which you can derive net.

We're not talking about the equation, we're talking about your claim that those textbooks said matter at equilibrium stops emitting. So provide the passage in each that backs up your claim. LOL!

You are making the claim that they are saying that the two objects at the same temperature are still emitting...can you show me some observed, measured evidence that they are emitting and absorbing the same amount of energy to and from each other? Can you show me anything at all other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model upon which your position is based? Any physical evidence at all?...Because the SB law as I have presented it can accurately predict the temperature and amount of energy emitted by a radiator under practically any condition. You can claim net all you like, but it isn't described in the law...and there isn't the first observation or measurement supporting the claim, while every observation and every measurement ever made supports mine.

Nice story bro. So provide a passage from a real source that says they stop emitting.
Should be easy....if you're right.

It is...and it never gets more difficult....what is P and what does P equal in this equation.

. The physical law is a real source...in fact, it is the prime source. It says what it says and any addition to or subtraction from it is meaningless. Now maybe you might like to show a credible source which says that it is OK to alter or change a physical law in an effort to make it support your beliefs.

Why do you assume an object can discover the temperature of another object without photons?

I don't. I am simply stating what the physical law says. I don't have to try and imagine how or why...trying to imagine such a thing is a pointless exercise. I accept that the physical law accurately and predicts the temperature and amount of radiation an object emits every time...with no mathematical expression from which net can be derived included. You are the one questioning the physical law...therefore you are the one who must show that it is in error and should be reconfigured to include an expression from which net can be derived...got any observed, measured example of net energy flow between two objects? Of course you don't or you would have provided it long ago. What you have..and all that you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

You feel it means power radiated, when actually it means net power radiated.

This is interesting to me....how do you suppose it actually means net power when there is no expression in the mathematical description of the physical law from which net can be derived? Do you think that the work that goes into formulating a physical law is so lax and slipshod that it would require you to assume anything? If it means net, why doesn't it say net?..why is there no mathematical expression in it from which net could be derived?

 

[polarbear]

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?

That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.
Now for the nth time about this energy transfer using the StB equation to make a case for back radiation.
Which is according to you represented by the Wikipedia image you copied and pasted:

And according to you Herr Boltzmann allegedly said the (colder)T^4 s the "back radiation" component.
Do you think that Boltzmann was as stupid as somebody who would say so and not consider the spatial orientation of these 2 bodies ?
All of area A can only be assigned to the body that is totally surrounded by a spherical absorber only then does it get all the P from (hotter)T. Only then, (when it`s a sphere) does the distance between the 2 not have to be specified.
Do you see a provision for the distance in that equation, if so then you are hallucinating.
So since no distance is specified that means the (colder)T is a sphere and in that case only 1/2 of (colder) T is radiating at the hotter body. Unless you have stupid photons that behave the way you think they do.
If you wanted all of the (colder)T radiation the way you abuse that equation then the colder body would have to be inside the sphere of the hotter one. Unless you can come up with a spacial orientation that allows for both of them to be at 2 different places at the same time then you are clueless what the StB equation is all about.
Just as clueless as what Einstein`s equation E=mc^2 is all about...according to you it`s the same as E=1/2mv^2
I`m sure you`ll never run out of stupid questions and keep going on with your corona nonsense argument because you can`t figure out why it won`t absorb all the photons emitted by the cooler surface of the sun

That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.

How else do you explain SSDD's theory?

And according to you Herr Boltzmann allegedly said the (colder)T^4 s the "back radiation" component.

The emission of the colder object applies to any 2 objects, not just the atmosphere and the surface.

Do you think that Boltzmann was as stupid as somebody who would say so and not consider the spatial orientation of these 2 bodies ?

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

I`m sure you`ll never run out of stupid questions and keep going on with your corona nonsense argument

It's only nonsense based on SSDD's confusion.
Do you feel the Earth's atmosphere can't or won't radiate toward the warmer surface?

That "dimmer switch" is your stupid idea and you are the only one that keeps talking about it, just like your coronal plasma that is supposed to absorb light that goes right through it and you will never understand why.
No matter how often it`s explained to you.
As for the StB law and the other question (which is how you always "answer") "I am not sure what you are trying to say here"....when in reality you are more than not sure what Boltzmann was stating, in fact you have no clue whatsoever.
According to you he states that you can solve for temperature by adding the power flux from A and B when they are at the same temperature, which then is supposed to solve for a higher temperature than the hotter one of the 2 bodies...or both if they are both at the same temperature.
In no way did Boltzmann or anyone else but "warmers" say so.
If A and B are at the same temperature then according to you there is a cross section between A and B that has a higher power flux and must therefore have a higher temperature because of your little photon bullets that have to be accounted for with your naive photon physics...and failing that the same naive photon physics you phantasize implies a "dimmer switch".
If there were a hotter than emitter cross section and if this were the result of the sum of 2 power fluxes then it should be no problem to detect that with a FLIR. Unfortunately for you no such twice the power flux zone between 2 bodies of equal temperature can be detected, else nobody would ever design heat sinks that look like this:

Anyone who understands that photons are not simple particles as in your phantasy world has no problem understanding why there is no "dimmer switch" needed to avoid a problem that does not even exist.
In your naive world wave interference has to be the result of a "dimmer switch"

 

[SSDD]

It never ceases to amaze me that these people seem to believe that everything in the universe just naturally obeys the laws of physics...except for radiation...it must somehow know what it must do in order to obey those same laws...dimmer switches, smart photons (assuming photons even exist) etc. It boggles the mind.

 

[mamooth]

So SSDD, in all that mess, did you come up with an explanation as to why you think every molecule contains a dimmer switch, controlled by some unknown intelligence that transmits info across the universe at faster than light speeds?

No? You just used more and more words to deny that's what your theory is?

Imagine that.

Have you thought of writing up a paper concerning your magical intelligent matter with a dimmer switch built in? You'll set the scientific world on fire. If your dimmer switch theory is correct, there's no way they can't give you a Nobel Prize.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.

How else do you explain SSDD's theory?

Again...not my theory...simply what the physical law says...I accept it literally..it is you who doesn't...it is you who is in opposition to the physical law...it is you who needs to show some observed, measured, quantified evidence that it is in error...simply claiming that I am misinterpreting implies that there is actual observed, and measured evidence out there that proves I am misinterpreting...lets see it.

The emission of the colder object applies to any 2 objects, not just the atmosphere and the surface.

Close again...The temperature of the colder object(s) applies in any two objects...or any number of objects...it says so right there in the equation...the radiation emitted by the warmer object is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings. That is what the law says...the only mention of emission in the physical law is the emission of the warmer object...anything else is your opinion and not stated in the physical law. It isn't which is why you have no actual evidence with which to slap me down...you just have schoolboy misunderstandings, wishes, and juvenile one liners...and that's all.

It's only nonsense based on SSDD's confusion.

I can't help but notice that you still haven't shown me where specifically I have misinterpreted the equations associated with the physical law...I have shown you the equation showing the behavior of the object in a vacuum and the equation that is to be used when the object is not in a vacuum and in the presence of other matter...you claim that I have misinterpreted but haven't shown me anywhere in the equation where I am wrong...nor have you shown me any observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

Do you feel the Earth's atmosphere can't or won't radiate toward the warmer surface?

Can you show a measured instance of radiation in so called greenhouse gas frequencies from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface not made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere?...which isn't actually a measurement of energy moving from cool to warm...it is a measurement of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an instrument right next to the cooled one and you won't measure any radiation from the cooler atmosphere at all.

Again...not my theory...simply what the physical law says...

The physical law says that warmer matter can measure the temperature of cooler matter? Show me.

the radiation emitted by the warmer object is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings

Net energy emitted, not energy emitted.
If an object emitted slower, based on surroundings, it would have to measure the surroundings, which is impossible, if the cooler surroundings don't emit.

I can't help but notice that you still haven't shown me where specifically I have misinterpreted the equations associated with the physical law...

Your misinterpretation is your "matter above 0K stops emitting if warmer matter is near".
You still can't explain the conflict between that claim and the fact that the cooler surface of the Sun still emits even though surrounded by the hotter corona.

If your claim were true, the Sun's surface would be dark.

which isn't actually a measurement of energy moving from cool to warm...it is a measurement of energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...

Here is another of your errors. You feel that if energy can't be detected, it isn't being emitted.
And that the atmosphere, only emitting upward, can suddenly emit downward, if an instrument is cooled.
The cooled instrument, according to your confusion, can't emit toward the now warmer atmosphere, yet the warmer atmosphere has the info needed to emit downward.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, net radiated power is zero.

Net...when there is no mathematical expression in the physical law from which you can derive net? If net was the issue, don't you think it would be included in the physical law, and the equations associated with it?

The physical law describes the hotter as well as the cooler object.

Of course it does...there is an expression for the cooler object..it is Tc^4. And right there in the equation it describes explicitly what effect the cooler object has on the warmer...it sates in no uncertain terms that the difference between the cooler object (Tc^4) and the warmer object (T^4) determines the amount of radiation (P) emitted by the radiator...and that is all it says... If there were more, then the equation would say that there is more. Anything beyond the equation describing the physical law is not part of the physical law. It is fiction.

Using your misinterpretation of the real definition, explain why Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.

The weren't...equilibrium means nothing is happening....opposing forces have canceled each other out. You ASSUME that equilibrium means that each is absorbing the same amount of radiation...that isn't what the equation says because there is no expression in the equation from which you can derive net.

We're not talking about the equation, we're talking about your claim that those textbooks said matter at equilibrium stops emitting. So provide the passage in each that backs up your claim. LOL!

You are making the claim that they are saying that the two objects at the same temperature are still emitting...can you show me some observed, measured evidence that they are emitting and absorbing the same amount of energy to and from each other? Can you show me anything at all other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model upon which your position is based? Any physical evidence at all?...Because the SB law as I have presented it can accurately predict the temperature and amount of energy emitted by a radiator under practically any condition. You can claim net all you like, but it isn't described in the law...and there isn't the first observation or measurement supporting the claim, while every observation and every measurement ever made supports mine.

Nice story bro. So provide a passage from a real source that says they stop emitting.
Should be easy....if you're right.

It is...and it never gets more difficult....what is P and what does P equal in this equation.

. The physical law is a real source...in fact, it is the prime source. It says what it says and any addition to or subtraction from it is meaningless. Now maybe you might like to show a credible source which says that it is OK to alter or change a physical law in an effort to make it support your beliefs.

Why do you assume an object can discover the temperature of another object without photons?

I don't. I am simply stating what the physical law says. I don't have to try and imagine how or why...trying to imagine such a thing is a pointless exercise. I accept that the physical law accurately and predicts the temperature and amount of radiation an object emits every time...with no mathematical expression from which net can be derived included. You are the one questioning the physical law...therefore you are the one who must show that it is in error and should be reconfigured to include an expression from which net can be derived...got any observed, measured example of net energy flow between two objects? Of course you don't or you would have provided it long ago. What you have..and all that you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

You feel it means power radiated, when actually it means net power radiated.

This is interesting to me....how do you suppose it actually means net power when there is no expression in the mathematical description of the physical law from which net can be derived? Do you think that the work that goes into formulating a physical law is so lax and slipshod that it would require you to assume anything? If it means net, why doesn't it say net?..why is there no mathematical expression in it from which net could be derived?

Net...when there is no mathematical expression in the physical law from which you can derive net?

When you calculate the energy emitted by the warm object and the energy emitted by the cooler object, the net number is the energy emitted by the warmer minus the energy absorbed from the cooler. They both emit, of course.
No dimmer switch in nature.

it sates in no uncertain terms that the difference between the cooler object (Tc^4) and the warmer object (T^4) determines the amount of radiation (P) emitted by the radiator...and that is all it says..

You don't even know that (P) means net energy emitted.

The weren't...equilibrium means nothing is happening....

They didn't say nothing is happening. They didn't say neither emitted.

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

See, Planck says bodies at equilibrium radiate equal amounts of heat at each other.

You are making the claim that they are saying that the two objects at the same temperature are still emitting...

Not my claim, Planck's
Now you claimed your textbooks showed matter at equilibrium stops emitting.
So cut and paste the passages that prove you weren't lying.

It is...and it never gets more difficult....what is P and what does P equal in this equation.

.

P= net energy radiated.
In this example, they radiate the same amount, so net is zero.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.
Now for the nth time about this energy transfer using the StB equation to make a case for back radiation.
Which is according to you represented by the Wikipedia image you copied and pasted:

And according to you Herr Boltzmann allegedly said the (colder)T^4 s the "back radiation" component.
Do you think that Boltzmann was as stupid as somebody who would say so and not consider the spatial orientation of these 2 bodies ?
All of area A can only be assigned to the body that is totally surrounded by a spherical absorber only then does it get all the P from (hotter)T. Only then, (when it`s a sphere) does the distance between the 2 not have to be specified.
Do you see a provision for the distance in that equation, if so then you are hallucinating.
So since no distance is specified that means the (colder)T is a sphere and in that case only 1/2 of (colder) T is radiating at the hotter body. Unless you have stupid photons that behave the way you think they do.
If you wanted all of the (colder)T radiation the way you abuse that equation then the colder body would have to be inside the sphere of the hotter one. Unless you can come up with a spacial orientation that allows for both of them to be at 2 different places at the same time then you are clueless what the StB equation is all about.
Just as clueless as what Einstein`s equation E=mc^2 is all about...according to you it`s the same as E=1/2mv^2
I`m sure you`ll never run out of stupid questions and keep going on with your corona nonsense argument because you can`t figure out why it won`t absorb all the photons emitted by the cooler surface of the sun

That dimmer switch is one of your foolish questions that you keep using over and over again, just like the corona thing no matter how often it has been explained to you.

How else do you explain SSDD's theory?

And according to you Herr Boltzmann allegedly said the (colder)T^4 s the "back radiation" component.

The emission of the colder object applies to any 2 objects, not just the atmosphere and the surface.

Do you think that Boltzmann was as stupid as somebody who would say so and not consider the spatial orientation of these 2 bodies ?

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

I`m sure you`ll never run out of stupid questions and keep going on with your corona nonsense argument

It's only nonsense based on SSDD's confusion.
Do you feel the Earth's atmosphere can't or won't radiate toward the warmer surface?

That "dimmer switch" is your stupid idea and you are the only one that keeps talking about it, just like your coronal plasma that is supposed to absorb light that goes right through it and you will never understand why.
No matter how often it`s explained to you.
As for the StB law and the other question (which is how you always "answer") "I am not sure what you are trying to say here"....when in reality you are more than not sure what Boltzmann was stating, in fact you have no clue whatsoever.
According to you he states that you can solve for temperature by adding the power flux from A and B when they are at the same temperature, which then is supposed to solve for a higher temperature than the hotter one of the 2 bodies...or both if they are both at the same temperature.
In no way did Boltzmann or anyone else but "warmers" say so.
If A and B are at the same temperature then according to you there is a cross section between A and B that has a higher power flux and must therefore have a higher temperature because of your little photon bullets that have to be accounted for with your naive photon physics...and failing that the same naive photon physics you phantasize implies a "dimmer switch".
If there were a hotter than emitter cross section and if this were the result of the sum of 2 power fluxes then it should be no problem to detect that with a FLIR. Unfortunately for you no such twice the power flux zone between 2 bodies of equal temperature can be detected, else nobody would ever design heat sinks that look like this:

Anyone who understands that photons are not simple particles as in your phantasy world has no problem understanding why there is no "dimmer switch" needed to avoid a problem that does not even exist.
In your naive world wave interference has to be the result of a "dimmer switch"

That "dimmer switch" is your stupid idea

The dimmer switch is SSDD's moronic idea.
How else do you explain at object emitting at 300 K
suddenly cutting its emissions by 50% when an identical object at 252.27 K is placed nearby?

You avoided my question.
Do you feel the Earth's atmosphere can't or won't radiate toward the warmer surface?

just like your coronal plasma that is supposed to absorb light that goes right through it

The hot corona isn't supposed to absorb light from the Sun, according to SSDD, it prevents the Sun's surface from emitting.

"Can you show a measured instance of radiation in so called greenhouse gas frequencies from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface"

^
He thinks radiation from the cooler atmosphere can't move toward the surface.
Is he correct? If he is, why can radiation from the cooler surface move toward the warmer corona?

 

[SSDD]

The physical law says that warmer matter can measure the temperature of cooler matter? Show me.

No...that is just your wack job interpretation of the natural law...Tell me, do you also think that chemicals must decide if, and how, and how much to react with other chemicals?...Do you think that they must check with the other chemical to determine how much of it there is so that they know how long to react as well?

Net energy emitted, not energy emitted.

Again...your interpretation...that isn't what the SB law says because there is no expression which would allow you to calculate net anything.

If an object emitted slower, based on surroundings, it would have to measure the surroundings, which is impossible, if the cooler surroundings don't emit.

Again..your interpretation...Personally, I don't interpret anything...I am patient and don't mind waiting till science discovers the underlying mechanism. I am satisfied that the physical law is always right...

Your misinterpretation is your "matter above 0K stops emitting if warmer matter is near".

No...that is your interpretation...My argument is a literal statement of the SB law...there is no expression in the law for calculating net...You think that net should be there so you simply include it as if it were there...it isn't.

You still can't explain the conflict between that claim and the fact that the cooler surface of the Sun still emits even though surrounded by the hotter corona.

All been explained multiple times...sorry you aren't smart enough to grasp the explanation..just goes to show that kids shouldn't ask adult questions...they simply aren't prepared to understand the answers.

If your claim were true, the Sun's surface would be dark.

Again..your interpretation.

Here is another of your errors. You feel that if energy can't be detected, it isn't being emitted.
And that the atmosphere, only emitting upward, can suddenly emit downward, if an instrument is cooled.

Energy moves spontaneously from warm to cool..why would it not?

The cooled instrument, according to your confusion, can't emit toward the now warmer atmosphere, yet the warmer atmosphere has the info needed to emit downward.

I don't need to explain the physical law...I only need to know that it is correct...it states that energy moves spontaneously from warm to cool...It doesn't specify direction, or any such thing...it simply states that it happens...I accept that and don't need to interpret it in such a way that makes a claim that the law itself doesn't...but then my position is based on what the physical laws actually say and not some wacko interpretation of them.

 

[SSDD]

When you calculate the energy emitted by the warm object and the energy emitted by the cooler object, the net number is the energy emitted by the warmer minus the energy absorbed from the cooler. They both emit, of course.
No dimmer switch in nature.

But in the SB law, the only calculation you make regarding the cooler surroundings is the difference in temperature between the object and its surroundings...that is all..anything else is your interpretation...adding something to the law that you think should be there doesn't change the law...it only demonstrates that you are wrong.

You don't even know that (P) means net energy emitted.

How can it mean net when there is no mathematical expression there from which you can derive net anything? Again..your interpretation proven wrong by the physical law and its associated equations.

They didn't say nothing is happening. They didn't say neither emitted.

It says P=0 when the object and its surroundings are at the same temperature...zero has a definite mathematical definition...and we are talking about mathematics here...again...your interpretation, and it requires a different definition of Zero than the actual mathematical definition of zero.

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.”

So what? Can you show an observed measured example of such a thing happening? Did Planck's statement cause the SB law to be overturned and rewritten?...did it cause the second law of thermodynamics to be overturned and rewritten? Of course not...because Planck's statement remains an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

It is...and it never gets more difficult....what is P and what does P equal in this equation.

.

P= net energy radiated.

And where is the mathematical expression in that equation that allows you to derive net?

In this example, they radiate the same amount, so net is zero.

Again..your interpretation which is at odds with the actual equation the physical law specifies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The physical law says that warmer matter can measure the temperature of cooler matter? Show me.

No...that is just your wack job interpretation of the natural law...Tell me, do you also think that chemicals must decide if, and how, and how much to react with other chemicals?...Do you think that they must check with the other chemical to determine how much of it there is so that they know how long to react as well?

Net energy emitted, not energy emitted.

Again...your interpretation...that isn't what the SB law says because there is no expression which would allow you to calculate net anything.

If an object emitted slower, based on surroundings, it would have to measure the surroundings, which is impossible, if the cooler surroundings don't emit.

Again..your interpretation...Personally, I don't interpret anything...I am patient and don't mind waiting till science discovers the underlying mechanism. I am satisfied that the physical law is always right...

Your misinterpretation is your "matter above 0K stops emitting if warmer matter is near".

No...that is your interpretation...My argument is a literal statement of the SB law...there is no expression in the law for calculating net...You think that net should be there so you simply include it as if it were there...it isn't.

You still can't explain the conflict between that claim and the fact that the cooler surface of the Sun still emits even though surrounded by the hotter corona.

All been explained multiple times...sorry you aren't smart enough to grasp the explanation..just goes to show that kids shouldn't ask adult questions...they simply aren't prepared to understand the answers.

If your claim were true, the Sun's surface would be dark.

Again..your interpretation.

Here is another of your errors. You feel that if energy can't be detected, it isn't being emitted.
And that the atmosphere, only emitting upward, can suddenly emit downward, if an instrument is cooled.

Energy moves spontaneously from warm to cool..why would it not?

The cooled instrument, according to your confusion, can't emit toward the now warmer atmosphere, yet the warmer atmosphere has the info needed to emit downward.

I don't need to explain the physical law...I only need to know that it is correct...it states that energy moves spontaneously from warm to cool...It doesn't specify direction, or any such thing...it simply states that it happens...I accept that and don't need to interpret it in such a way that makes a claim that the law itself doesn't...but then my position is based on what the physical laws actually say and not some wacko interpretation of them.

Again...your interpretation...that isn't what the SB law says because there is no expression which would allow you to calculate net anything.

You still haven't shown a single source that says matter stops emitting in warmer surroundings.
Why not?

Tell you what, for every source you find that says that, I'll provide 2 that say P means net energy radiated.

All been explained multiple times...

Your "explanation" involved why the corona was hot, not why the cool surface still radiates.

Energy moves spontaneously from warm to cool..why would it not?

Energy also moves spontaneously from cool to warm.....why don't you explain your theory that upward suddenly emits downward, just because an instrument is cooled?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you calculate the energy emitted by the warm object and the energy emitted by the cooler object, the net number is the energy emitted by the warmer minus the energy absorbed from the cooler. They both emit, of course.
No dimmer switch in nature.

But in the SB law, the only calculation you make regarding the cooler surroundings is the difference in temperature between the object and its surroundings...that is all..anything else is your interpretation...adding something to the law that you think should be there doesn't change the law...it only demonstrates that you are wrong.

You don't even know that (P) means net energy emitted.

How can it mean net when there is no mathematical expression there from which you can derive net anything? Again..your interpretation proven wrong by the physical law and its associated equations.

They didn't say nothing is happening. They didn't say neither emitted.

It says P=0 when the object and its surroundings are at the same temperature...zero has a definite mathematical definition...and we are talking about mathematics here...again...your interpretation, and it requires a different definition of Zero than the actual mathematical definition of zero.

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.”

So what? Can you show an observed measured example of such a thing happening? Did Planck's statement cause the SB law to be overturned and rewritten?...did it cause the second law of thermodynamics to be overturned and rewritten? Of course not...because Planck's statement remains an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

It is...and it never gets more difficult....what is P and what does P equal in this equation.

.

P= net energy radiated.

And where is the mathematical expression in that equation that allows you to derive net?

In this example, they radiate the same amount, so net is zero.

Again..your interpretation which is at odds with the actual equation the physical law specifies.

[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.”



So what?

You said equilibrium means nothing happens. Planck says it means they both radiate.
Who first discovered Planck was wrong? Was it you?

Again..your interpretation which is at odds with the actual equation the physical law specifies.

Again..your interpretation is at odds with the Einstein, Planck and others. Why are you right and they're wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The physical law says that warmer matter can measure the temperature of cooler matter? Show me.

No...that is just your wack job interpretation of the natural law...Tell me, do you also think that chemicals must decide if, and how, and how much to react with other chemicals?...Do you think that they must check with the other chemical to determine how much of it there is so that they know how long to react as well?

Net energy emitted, not energy emitted.

Again...your interpretation...that isn't what the SB law says because there is no expression which would allow you to calculate net anything.

If an object emitted slower, based on surroundings, it would have to measure the surroundings, which is impossible, if the cooler surroundings don't emit.

Again..your interpretation...Personally, I don't interpret anything...I am patient and don't mind waiting till science discovers the underlying mechanism. I am satisfied that the physical law is always right...

Your misinterpretation is your "matter above 0K stops emitting if warmer matter is near".

No...that is your interpretation...My argument is a literal statement of the SB law...there is no expression in the law for calculating net...You think that net should be there so you simply include it as if it were there...it isn't.

You still can't explain the conflict between that claim and the fact that the cooler surface of the Sun still emits even though surrounded by the hotter corona.

All been explained multiple times...sorry you aren't smart enough to grasp the explanation..just goes to show that kids shouldn't ask adult questions...they simply aren't prepared to understand the answers.

If your claim were true, the Sun's surface would be dark.

Again..your interpretation.

Here is another of your errors. You feel that if energy can't be detected, it isn't being emitted.
And that the atmosphere, only emitting upward, can suddenly emit downward, if an instrument is cooled.

Energy moves spontaneously from warm to cool..why would it not?

The cooled instrument, according to your confusion, can't emit toward the now warmer atmosphere, yet the warmer atmosphere has the info needed to emit downward.

I don't need to explain the physical law...I only need to know that it is correct...it states that energy moves spontaneously from warm to cool...It doesn't specify direction, or any such thing...it simply states that it happens...I accept that and don't need to interpret it in such a way that makes a claim that the law itself doesn't...but then my position is based on what the physical laws actually say and not some wacko interpretation of them.

The cooled instrument, according to your confusion, can't emit toward the now warmer atmosphere, yet the warmer atmosphere has the info needed to emit downward.

I don't need to explain the physical law...

You don't need to explain the law, but when your interpretation violates causality, you need to explain how that violation is possible.

 

[mamooth]

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is this, and no more.

SSDD pretends that the S-B law has a second term. It doesn't. He made that up. He started by assuming backradiation doesn't exist, and worked backwards from that kook assumption to create a fictional version of the S-B Law. The two-term equation SSDD always quotes is not the S-B Law, it's an equilibrium equation derived from the S-B Law.

The S-B Law, that one term, says the only thing controlling the radiation of matter is its own temperature and emissivity. There's jack in the S-B Law about the temperature of nearby matter. Nearby matter means nothing. Matter emits according to its own temperature, period.

This isn't a discussion. The DimmerSwitchAndIntelligentPhotons theory of SSDD and pals is among the dumbest pseudophysics ever invented. At this point, SSDD and pals are only useful as an illustration of how fanatical cult devotion causes people to believe very stupid things.

 

[polarbear]

Yes, net radiated power is zero.

Net...when there is no mathematical expression in the physical law from which you can derive net? If net was the issue, don't you think it would be included in the physical law, and the equations associated with it?

The physical law describes the hotter as well as the cooler object.

Of course it does...there is an expression for the cooler object..it is Tc^4. And right there in the equation it describes explicitly what effect the cooler object has on the warmer...it sates in no uncertain terms that the difference between the cooler object (Tc^4) and the warmer object (T^4) determines the amount of radiation (P) emitted by the radiator...and that is all it says... If there were more, then the equation would say that there is more. Anything beyond the equation describing the physical law is not part of the physical law. It is fiction.

Using your misinterpretation of the real definition, explain why Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.

The weren't...equilibrium means nothing is happening....opposing forces have canceled each other out. You ASSUME that equilibrium means that each is absorbing the same amount of radiation...that isn't what the equation says because there is no expression in the equation from which you can derive net.

We're not talking about the equation, we're talking about your claim that those textbooks said matter at equilibrium stops emitting. So provide the passage in each that backs up your claim. LOL!

You are making the claim that they are saying that the two objects at the same temperature are still emitting...can you show me some observed, measured evidence that they are emitting and absorbing the same amount of energy to and from each other? Can you show me anything at all other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model upon which your position is based? Any physical evidence at all?...Because the SB law as I have presented it can accurately predict the temperature and amount of energy emitted by a radiator under practically any condition. You can claim net all you like, but it isn't described in the law...and there isn't the first observation or measurement supporting the claim, while every observation and every measurement ever made supports mine.

Nice story bro. So provide a passage from a real source that says they stop emitting.
Should be easy....if you're right.

It is...and it never gets more difficult....what is P and what does P equal in this equation.

. The physical law is a real source...in fact, it is the prime source. It says what it says and any addition to or subtraction from it is meaningless. Now maybe you might like to show a credible source which says that it is OK to alter or change a physical law in an effort to make it support your beliefs.

Why do you assume an object can discover the temperature of another object without photons?

I don't. I am simply stating what the physical law says. I don't have to try and imagine how or why...trying to imagine such a thing is a pointless exercise. I accept that the physical law accurately and predicts the temperature and amount of radiation an object emits every time...with no mathematical expression from which net can be derived included. You are the one questioning the physical law...therefore you are the one who must show that it is in error and should be reconfigured to include an expression from which net can be derived...got any observed, measured example of net energy flow between two objects? Of course you don't or you would have provided it long ago. What you have..and all that you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

You feel it means power radiated, when actually it means net power radiated.

This is interesting to me....how do you suppose it actually means net power when there is no expression in the mathematical description of the physical law from which net can be derived? Do you think that the work that goes into formulating a physical law is so lax and slipshod that it would require you to assume anything? If it means net, why doesn't it say net?..why is there no mathematical expression in it from which net could be derived?

Net...when there is no mathematical expression in the physical law from which you can derive net?

When you calculate the energy emitted by the warm object and the energy emitted by the cooler object, the net number is the energy emitted by the warmer minus the energy absorbed from the cooler. They both emit, of course.
No dimmer switch in nature.

it sates in no uncertain terms that the difference between the cooler object (Tc^4) and the warmer object (T^4) determines the amount of radiation (P) emitted by the radiator...and that is all it says..

You don't even know that (P) means net energy emitted.

The weren't...equilibrium means nothing is happening....

They didn't say nothing is happening. They didn't say neither emitted.

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

See, Planck says bodies at equilibrium radiate equal amounts of heat at each other.

You are making the claim that they are saying that the two objects at the same temperature are still emitting...

Not my claim, Planck's
Now you claimed your textbooks showed matter at equilibrium stops emitting.
So cut and paste the passages that prove you weren't lying.

It is...and it never gets more difficult....what is P and what does P equal in this equation.

.

P= net energy radiated.
In this example, they radiate the same amount, so net is zero.

You just don`t get it.

The photobucket gif you made yourself is the kind of nonsense no respectable physicist would ever formulate.
Because there is no need to stipulate that zero power is transferred from either of the 255 K body to the other.
If there were then explain why a cross section between the 2 does not have twice the power flux of a 255 K radiator. It does not and your inability to understand wave functions is your problem.
It also does not mean that either one of the 255 K bodies has to stop radiating so that the cross section is not twice the power flux of each....as your photobucket gif would have to be changed to a + sign in the brackets to express the power flux for the cross section.
In essence you keep saying that a-a is not 0, it`s 255^4 - 255^4 and if P= 0 and a is not zero unless a+a=0
which then with your particle only photons means that a non zero a stopped radiating.
While in reality the cross section between 2 equal radiators is no more than the power flux of just one of the 2:

Net effect is that wave interference cancels out as much as it adds as long as both bodies emit the same spectrum. Which is not the case ( Wien`s displacement law) if one of the 2 bodies is hotter than the other one then the portion of the spectrum which is not the same as the cooler one transfers that portion exactly as per the StB equation.
In your kindergarten em phantasy world heterodyne frequency mixing would not be possible nor could we cool a material with photons, but we can

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, net radiated power is zero.

Net...when there is no mathematical expression in the physical law from which you can derive net? If net was the issue, don't you think it would be included in the physical law, and the equations associated with it?

The physical law describes the hotter as well as the cooler object.

Of course it does...there is an expression for the cooler object..it is Tc^4. And right there in the equation it describes explicitly what effect the cooler object has on the warmer...it sates in no uncertain terms that the difference between the cooler object (Tc^4) and the warmer object (T^4) determines the amount of radiation (P) emitted by the radiator...and that is all it says... If there were more, then the equation would say that there is more. Anything beyond the equation describing the physical law is not part of the physical law. It is fiction.

Using your misinterpretation of the real definition, explain why Planck and Einstein were wrong about equilibrium.

The weren't...equilibrium means nothing is happening....opposing forces have canceled each other out. You ASSUME that equilibrium means that each is absorbing the same amount of radiation...that isn't what the equation says because there is no expression in the equation from which you can derive net.

We're not talking about the equation, we're talking about your claim that those textbooks said matter at equilibrium stops emitting. So provide the passage in each that backs up your claim. LOL!

You are making the claim that they are saying that the two objects at the same temperature are still emitting...can you show me some observed, measured evidence that they are emitting and absorbing the same amount of energy to and from each other? Can you show me anything at all other than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model upon which your position is based? Any physical evidence at all?...Because the SB law as I have presented it can accurately predict the temperature and amount of energy emitted by a radiator under practically any condition. You can claim net all you like, but it isn't described in the law...and there isn't the first observation or measurement supporting the claim, while every observation and every measurement ever made supports mine.

Nice story bro. So provide a passage from a real source that says they stop emitting.
Should be easy....if you're right.

It is...and it never gets more difficult....what is P and what does P equal in this equation.

. The physical law is a real source...in fact, it is the prime source. It says what it says and any addition to or subtraction from it is meaningless. Now maybe you might like to show a credible source which says that it is OK to alter or change a physical law in an effort to make it support your beliefs.

Why do you assume an object can discover the temperature of another object without photons?

I don't. I am simply stating what the physical law says. I don't have to try and imagine how or why...trying to imagine such a thing is a pointless exercise. I accept that the physical law accurately and predicts the temperature and amount of radiation an object emits every time...with no mathematical expression from which net can be derived included. You are the one questioning the physical law...therefore you are the one who must show that it is in error and should be reconfigured to include an expression from which net can be derived...got any observed, measured example of net energy flow between two objects? Of course you don't or you would have provided it long ago. What you have..and all that you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

You feel it means power radiated, when actually it means net power radiated.

This is interesting to me....how do you suppose it actually means net power when there is no expression in the mathematical description of the physical law from which net can be derived? Do you think that the work that goes into formulating a physical law is so lax and slipshod that it would require you to assume anything? If it means net, why doesn't it say net?..why is there no mathematical expression in it from which net could be derived?

Net...when there is no mathematical expression in the physical law from which you can derive net?

When you calculate the energy emitted by the warm object and the energy emitted by the cooler object, the net number is the energy emitted by the warmer minus the energy absorbed from the cooler. They both emit, of course.
No dimmer switch in nature.

it sates in no uncertain terms that the difference between the cooler object (Tc^4) and the warmer object (T^4) determines the amount of radiation (P) emitted by the radiator...and that is all it says..

You don't even know that (P) means net energy emitted.

The weren't...equilibrium means nothing is happening....

They didn't say nothing is happening. They didn't say neither emitted.

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

See, Planck says bodies at equilibrium radiate equal amounts of heat at each other.

You are making the claim that they are saying that the two objects at the same temperature are still emitting...

Not my claim, Planck's
Now you claimed your textbooks showed matter at equilibrium stops emitting.
So cut and paste the passages that prove you weren't lying.

It is...and it never gets more difficult....what is P and what does P equal in this equation.

.

P= net energy radiated.
In this example, they radiate the same amount, so net is zero.

You just don`t get it.

The photobucket gif you made yourself is the kind of nonsense no respectable physicist would ever formulate.
Because there is no need to stipulate that zero power is transferred from either of the 255 K body to the other.
If there were then explain why a cross section between the 2 does not have twice the power flux of a 255 K radiator. It does not and your inability to understand wave functions is your problem.
It also does not mean that either one of the 255 K bodies has to stop radiating so that the cross section is not twice the power flux of each....as your photobucket gif would have to be changed to a + sign in the brackets to express the power flux for the cross section.
In essence you keep saying that a-a is not 0, it`s 255^4 - 255^4 and if P= 0 and a is not zero unless a+a=0
which then with your particle only photons means that a non zero a stopped radiating.
While in reality the cross section between 2 equal radiators is no more than the power flux of just one of the 2:

Net effect is that wave interference cancels out as much as it adds as long as both bodies emit the same spectrum. Which is not the case ( Wien`s displacement law) if one of the 2 bodies is hotter than the other one then the portion of the spectrum which is not the same as the cooler one transfers that portion exactly as per the StB equation.
In your kindergarten em phantasy world heterodyne frequency mixing would not be possible nor could we cool a material with photons, but we can

The photobucket gif you made yourself is the kind of nonsense no respectable physicist would ever formulate.
Because there is no need to stipulate that zero power is transferred from either of the 255 K body to the other.

Both bodies emit the same amount of energy.
SSDD thinks neither emits anything.

So which is it?

If there were then explain why a cross section between the 2 does not have twice the power flux of a 255 K radiator.

A vacuum between the 2 has a power flux? Cool! So what?

 

[mamooth]

If there were then explain why a cross section between the 2 does not have twice the power flux of a 255 K radiator. It does not and your inability to understand wave functions is your problem.

"Wave functions" has zilch to do with the topic. It's just a term you're throwing about that you have no understanding of. If you did understand it, you'd know it has nothing to do with the topic.

While in reality the cross section between 2 equal radiators is no more than the power flux of just one of the 2:

Power flux is also a term you don't understand. Flux is a vector quantity. It's quite possible for the flux between the two to be near zero, but twice the total energy is still traveling.

Now, power density, that would be doubled.

Net effect is that wave interference cancels out

Say what? God no, wave interference doesn't work that way. Matter isn't spitting out coherent light, so there is no wave interference.