Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
S
Yet the cavity experiment does measure the amount of radiation produced. .
S
Yet the cavity experiment does measure the amount of radiation produced. .
No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.
Why don't you explain the non-spontaneous flow of energy from the surface to the corona?
Their is reason that sceintists say that the movement of energy from the surface to the corona defies our understanding...it isn't because they believe energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm..it is because they believe something is happing there that we don't understand...that would be some process that equates to work making the movement happen. You seem to be the only one suggesting that the energy movement is spontaneous.
Yes, cooler matter of the surface of the Sun freely radiates in all directions, including toward the hotter corona.
The second law says that you are wrong...but you go ahead and believe.
Grey bodies in an atmosphere don't radiate?
Yes, but they radiate according to their emissivity, their area, and the difference in temperature between themselves and their surroundings..Set T1 and T2 to the same number and P=0.
Have you ever found a source that says, the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T, unless there is warmer matter nearby (or billions of light years away)?
Years and distance are irrelevant to entities traveling at the speed of light. Most sources assume that the reader already knows this and therefore aren't interested in teaching basics all over again. Ever go to college? When you get to 2000 and 3000 level physics they assume that you already know the math so spend little to no time teaching algebra, trig, and calculus. If you are unaware that time and distance are irrelevant concepts when you are talking about entities that are moving at the speed of light, then you need to go back to the remedial level.
Or any source that says matter at equilibrium doesn't radiate at all?
Just the SB law...again set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0...that statement actually has a literal and mathematical meaning...and since the equation has no variable that would allow for calculations of net, it is speaking to gross, one way energy movements. Sorry that you can't read an equation and know what it says. I get that your dogma requires that it say something else, but alas, the language of mathematical equations is very explicit..if you don't have an expression or expressions within the equation that would allow you to calculate net, then it isn't speaking to net.
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.”
Again, set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0 that means that the power being radiated is equal to the power being absorbed from other bodies at equilibrium
Was Kirchhoff wrong?
Of course not...you are just unable to read mathematical equations...which is required if you want to know what he is saying...in verbal language, statements are open to interpretation..in mathematical language, they are not...set T1 and T2 to the same number and P=0...that mathematical statement is not open to interpretation.
Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "
According to an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. Einstein had some opinions on models..maybe you should look them up.
Years and distance are irrelevant to entities traveling at the speed of light. Most sources assume that the reader already knows this and therefore aren't interested in teaching basics all over again. Ever go to college? When you get to 2000 and 3000 level physics they assume that you already know the math so spend little to no time teaching algebra, trig, and calculus. If you are unaware that time and distance are irrelevant concepts when you are talking about entities that are moving at the speed of light, then you need to go back to the remedial level
Just the SB law...again set T1 and T2 to the same temperature and P=0...that statement actually has a literal and mathematical meaning...and since the equation has no variable that would allow for calculations of net, it is speaking to gross, one way energy movements. Sorry that you can't read an equation and know what it says. I get that your dogma requires that it say something else, but alas, the language of mathematical equations is very explicit..if you don't have an expression or expressions within the equation that would allow you to calculate net, then it isn't speaking to net
The equation is easily rearranged to give gross amounts going in either direction. It has been shown to you a hundred times or more.
P = k (T^4 - Tc^4) is exactly the same as
P = kT^4 - kTc^4
The first arrangement emphasizes the temperature relationship, and shortens it because the components of k ( emissivity, S-B constant, and Area) only have to be written once.
The second arrangement emphasizes the two gross flows that combine together to make a net flow.
Both give the same answer. Neither arrangement is 'better' than the other.
The equation is easily rearranged to give gross amounts going in either direction. It has been shown to you a hundred times or more.
P = k (T^4 - Tc^4) is exactly the same as
P = kT^4 - kTc^4
If all you want is an answer, then yes, they are the same...if you want to make a mathematical statement regarding a physical phenomenon, then no, they are not the same...in fact, they are quite different. And since there has never been a measurement of two way energy flow, the very idea of trying to substitute a mathematical statement that reflects every observation and measurement ever made for one that only applies in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models stinks of deliberate fraud.
The first arrangement emphasizes the temperature relationship, and shortens it because the components of k ( emissivity, S-B constant, and Area) only have to be written once.
The first arrangement is the actual equation used by the SB law..it describes a gross one way energy movement from cool to warm.
The second arrangement emphasizes the two gross flows that combine together to make a net flow.
The second statement is deliberate fraud...it makes a mathematical statement of a physical process that has never been observed or measured.
Both give the same answer. Neither arrangement is 'better' than the other.
The point of the equation is to describe a physical process..one describes an actual observable, measurable process..one is deliberate fraud which pretends to describe a physical process which has never been observed, or measured.
Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2
Just to put a period to the discussion, can you show me a two way Planck law by which to prove the two way version of the SB law? Answer: No.
No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.
Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2
Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2
It makes no difference which order they are inserted into the equation. A negative result just means the net flow is going into the first object.
No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.
You still haven't made any effort to explain how these are two very different things. Why not?
No ian..the cavity experiment measures the amount of radiation present...and then makes assumptions about what it is doing. Measuring the amount of radiation being produced, and the amount of radiation present are two very different things.
You still haven't made any effort to explain how these are two very different things. Why not?
Geez ian...i thought you were smarter than that...hell, look at an atomic blast..there is an amount of radiation produced..and an amount of radiation present...they aren't the same thing.
Follow through with your bastardized equation without violating SB's assumption that T1 is ALWAYS greater than T2
It makes no difference which order they are inserted into the equation. A negative result just means the net flow is going into the first object.
Not what the SB law says...and I am still waiting for a single measurement of two way energy flow....it only happens in your models...never out here in the real world where the rest of us live.
Hahahaha!!!!!!!
An atomic blast! That's your answer. Hahahaha.
It's right there in the equation. Net power equals the power of the first object less the power of the second object, with due consideration given to emissivity and area.
What happens when we take due consideration of emissivities for surface and atmosphere?
At 15 microns the atmosphere is black, all surface 15 micron radiation is absorbed within the first few metres.
At 10 microns the atmosphere is clear, the surface radiation is almost totally transmitted out to space as if the atmosphere was not even there.
Cloud are more like liquid water than a gas so they have more bonds to absorb a variety of photons than does water vapour.
Hahahaha!!!!!!!
An atomic blast! That's your answer. Hahahaha.
Pick your own example..they are practically all the same...an amount of radiation being produced is a different thing from an amount of radiation present...sorry you are unable to grasp such a basic fact. Guess you didn't learn much about the real world in modeling 101.
It's right there in the equation. Net power equals the power of the first object less the power of the second object, with due consideration given to emissivity and area.
If you believe the actual SB equation has an expression for net, then you are a f'ing idiot who lacks the ability to read even the most basic mathematical equation.
That equation is a very precise sentence describing a physical reality..and there is nothing there about net energy flows...your dogma and, frankly, pitiful belief in models over reality is just sad ian...sad as it can be.
