No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

[IanC]

it was there before you posted your post. look at last edited time on his post it is before your post.

He has his panties in a wad because he knows he is wrong...and because he knows everything, he is finding it difficult to admit...especially on this, because it is fundamental...he has misunderstood a very basic element of the SB law, and therefore everything he thinks he knows is called into question because he didn't have a good grasp of the basics before he moved on....it must be tough for someone like him to admit to himself that everything he thought he knew is being called into question...and now he will dance and dodge for who knows how long trying to convince himself that the first equation of the SB law describes an object radiating into a vacuum...

He admitted the fact himself, but can't see it...he stated himself that the first equation describes a single object...period....what he failed to recognize is that the only place you can have a single object...period...is in an empty vacuum...if it is anywhere else, then it is not isolated...and you are no longer talking about a single object, but an object in the presence of other objects.

he has misunderstood a very basic element of the SB law, and therefore everything he thinks he knows is called into question because he didn't have a good grasp of the basics before he moved on.

Explain the dimmer switch theory of emitting.
Does matter emit fewer photons? Or do the photons just have less energy, when another object is nearby?

Ockham's Razor is no friend of SSDD. Nor is logic.

Every object radiates according to its temperature as per the single term S-B equation. All the time, no exceptions.

Net flow of radiation is covered by the two term S-B equation. Much more complicated to actually use. But it is based on the radiation described by the single term equation done on each object. The act of comparing two objects does not change the two objects. Everything radiates, all the time, based on the local condition of the object at the time, not from some secondary object.

Note well, any object's radiation defined by the S-B equation will of course be changing due to energy loss over time. The definition is only valid for one set of initial conditions.

 

[SSDD]

So what? How long does it take you to scan a technical post, think about it, formulate a response, and hit the send button?

Oh, I forgot. You skip the reading and thinking parts and just put down semi random words that are irrelevant to the conversation.

Carry on then.

Clearly you skip the reading...and obviously you skip the thinking because you believe you already know everything there is to know...well you didn't know the most fundamental fact of the first SB equation...that being that it described an object radiating into an empty vacuum....and therefore everything you think you know after that fundamental fact is tainted by your lack of understanding of the basics....

Actually you are the one who is lacking in fundamental thinking. The single object version of the S-B law describes the radiation produced by, amazingly obvious, a single object. This radiation is there no matter what the environment is.

If you want to know the net movement of radiation between two objects the you have to use the two term S-B equation.

So you are ignorant, lazy, and stupid...becoming less of a surprise all the time....I provided you a clear statement from Perdue University that the first equation of the SB law deals with an object radiating into a vacuum...and since you believe you know everything, you rejected it...not my problem, but since there are plenty of places that state this OBVIOUS fact, I will provide you some more.

And by the way, you are quite wrong regarding the two term SB equation as well...it deals with any object not radiating into a vacuum...the Tc statement denotes the background...not a second object...yet another fundamental error regarding the SB law.....seems that you don't know nearly as much as you thought...

Here, from the physics department at Georgia State...

[Georgia State University]where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

[/quote]

Now back to the vacuum issue...

Handbook of Crystal Growth

Heat Flux-based Emissivity Measurement

An Objectivist Individualist: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists

An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature

https://dauwhe.github.io/epub-zero/acme-publishing/HeatRadiation/OPS/s013-Chapter-004.xhtml

Hans Jelbring: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Construction of a Perpetuum Mobile

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5444.pdf

And if you are too damned lazy to look up the pertinent passages, just let me know and I will help you out when I have time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what? How long does it take you to scan a technical post, think about it, formulate a response, and hit the send button?

Oh, I forgot. You skip the reading and thinking parts and just put down semi random words that are irrelevant to the conversation.

Carry on then.

Clearly you skip the reading...and obviously you skip the thinking because you believe you already know everything there is to know...well you didn't know the most fundamental fact of the first SB equation...that being that it described an object radiating into an empty vacuum....and therefore everything you think you know after that fundamental fact is tainted by your lack of understanding of the basics....

Actually you are the one who is lacking in fundamental thinking. The single object version of the S-B law describes the radiation produced by, amazingly obvious, a single object. This radiation is there no matter what the environment is.

If you want to know the net movement of radiation between two objects the you have to use the two term S-B equation.

So you are ignorant, lazy, and stupid...becoming less of a surprise all the time....I provided you a clear statement from Perdue University that the first equation of the SB law deals with an object radiating into a vacuum...and since you believe you know everything, you rejected it...not my problem, but since there are plenty of places that state this OBVIOUS fact, I will provide you some more.

And by the way, you are quite wrong regarding the two term SB equation as well...it deals with any object not radiating into a vacuum...the Tc statement denotes the background...not a second object...yet another fundamental error regarding the SB law.....seems that you don't know nearly as much as you thought...

Here, from the physics department at Georgia State...

[Georgia State University]where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

Now back to the vacuum issue...

Handbook of Crystal Growth

Heat Flux-based Emissivity Measurement

An Objectivist Individualist: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists

An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature

https://dauwhe.github.io/epub-zero/acme-publishing/HeatRadiation/OPS/s013-Chapter-004.xhtml

Hans Jelbring: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Construction of a Perpetuum Mobile

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5444.pdf

And if you are too damned lazy to look up the pertinent passages, just let me know and I will help you out when I have time.

An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature

I will provide reasons why these rare IR-absorbing gases are much less effective in providing back-emitted IR radiation originally from the surface which the surface can absorb than is water vapor. I will also point out why water vapor is itself less effective in warming the surface by re-emitted IR radiation it has absorbed from surface IR emission than is usually thought to be the case by the catastrophic man-made global warming advocates. The effect of IR radiation from the atmosphere upon the surface temperature has been generally greatly over-estimated while the size of the natural effects of the previous paragraph has been greatly underestimated.

I like when your sources disagree with your claim that back-radiation doesn't exist.

 

[SSDD]

A person can be right about one thing and wrong about something else...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A person can be right about one thing and wrong about something else...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...

...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...

You never explained how the hotter radiator knows the temperature of the cooler surroundings.
Or if fewer photons are emitted or just less energetic ones, as the temperatures equalize.

 

[Old Rocks]

So you duck the question yet again.

here ian,,,,,if you are that f'ing lazy...or to stupid to use google, by all means, here...not that it will possibly matter to someone so stupid and lazy....this is a fine place to start...

The Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect: Old controversy – new relevance

This site can’t be reached
link.aip.org’s server DNS address could not be found.

Page not found

Seems that the pages with the original papers are not available, although I have found no papers previously published by the American Institute of Physics that were not available, at least in abstract form.

 

[IanC]

So what? How long does it take you to scan a technical post, think about it, formulate a response, and hit the send button?

Oh, I forgot. You skip the reading and thinking parts and just put down semi random words that are irrelevant to the conversation.

Carry on then.

Clearly you skip the reading...and obviously you skip the thinking because you believe you already know everything there is to know...well you didn't know the most fundamental fact of the first SB equation...that being that it described an object radiating into an empty vacuum....and therefore everything you think you know after that fundamental fact is tainted by your lack of understanding of the basics....

Actually you are the one who is lacking in fundamental thinking. The single object version of the S-B law describes the radiation produced by, amazingly obvious, a single object. This radiation is there no matter what the environment is.

If you want to know the net movement of radiation between two objects the you have to use the two term S-B equation.

So you are ignorant, lazy, and stupid...becoming less of a surprise all the time....I provided you a clear statement from Perdue University that the first equation of the SB law deals with an object radiating into a vacuum...and since you believe you know everything, you rejected it...not my problem, but since there are plenty of places that state this OBVIOUS fact, I will provide you some more.

And by the way, you are quite wrong regarding the two term SB equation as well...it deals with any object not radiating into a vacuum...the Tc statement denotes the background...not a second object...yet another fundamental error regarding the SB law.....seems that you don't know nearly as much as you thought...

Here, from the physics department at Georgia State...

[Georgia State University]where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

Now back to the vacuum issue...

Handbook of Crystal Growth

Heat Flux-based Emissivity Measurement

An Objectivist Individualist: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists

An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature

https://dauwhe.github.io/epub-zero/acme-publishing/HeatRadiation/OPS/s013-Chapter-004.xhtml

Hans Jelbring: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Construction of a Perpetuum Mobile

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5444.pdf

And if you are too damned lazy to look up the pertinent passages, just let me know and I will help you out when I have time.[/QUOTE]


Firstly, putting down a bare link with no reference to what idea it is supposedly supporting or where in the link the pertinent information is to be found will be summarily ignored by me. If you are too lazy to express your point in your own words then don't expect me to be industrious enough to read a whole article, digest the information, guess at what YOU thought was important, and then respond in a coordinated fashion. I am not a mind reader, and your ideas are not logical enough to infer from scattered clues.

The single term, single object form of the S-B equation deals with radiation produced by that single object. No more, no less. The environment makes no difference to the amount of radiation produced by the object, which is defined by the temperature of the object.

The second S-B equation is more complex. It involves two objects, each of which has its radiation defined by an iteration of the first S-B equation. The net flow between two areas on the two objects can be determined. The simplest example is when one object is surrounded by the other because angle of the radiation balances out (if the inner object is spherical). The flux at the boundary would be symmetrical. Any other case would involve further calculations dependant on shapes and angles.

Calculating two spherical objects radiating towards each other would involve both the shape and flux but also the environment that these two objects are imbedded in.

The first equation is reasonably simple, the second equation rapidly escalates in complexity and is only valid for specific areas that are different than the areas next to them.

The first S-B equation is general and easily calculated with few assumptions. The second S-B equation rapidly escalates into mind boggling complexity that demands many assumptions and estimates to get any type of answer at all.

The fact that you have presumed that the first equation is actually a special case of the second equation involving a simplification that does not exist in reality shows that you do not understand either the theoretical underpinnings of radiation and radiation transfer, or the complexities of radiation transfer in the real world.

 

[SSDD]

Firstly, putting down a bare link with no reference to what idea it is supposedly supporting or where in the link the pertinent information is to be found will be summarily ignored by me. If you are too lazy to express your point in your own words then don't expect me to be industrious enough to read a whole article, digest the information, guess at what YOU thought was important, and then respond in a coordinated fashion. I am not a mind reader, and your ideas are not logical enough to infer from scattered clues.

As I said, if you are too damned lazy to look up the pertinent passages, just let me know and I will help you out when I have time....so here...

Handbook of Crystal Growth

20.4.2.1 let us first consider an opaque body at high temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the total emitted energy from a black surface into a vacuum, is given by…….

Heat Flux-based Emissivity Measurement

An energy balance is then used to determine the emissivity through the Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation. To do this, an enclosure of uniform temperature capable of holding high vacuum is used to act as a blackbody simulating radiation to deep space.

An Objectivist Individualist: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists

I have previously pointed out that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law actually only tells us the amount of radiation emitted by a surface into a vacuum. A surface in contact with another material will lose energy by other mechanisms, so one must apply the law of Conservation of Energy to determine the actual amount of radiation in many cases of material contact across an interface.

An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature

The Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation applies to a surface radiating into vacuum, not into an atmosphere able to provide competing cooling processes due to air conduction, air convection, and water evaporation.

https://dauwhe.github.io/epub-zero/acme-publishing/HeatRadiation/OPS/s013-Chapter-004.xhtml

Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation

61. For the following we imagine a perfectly evacuated hollow cylinder with an absolutely tight-fitting piston free to move in a vertical direction with no friction. A part of the walls of the cylinder, say the rigid bottom, should consist of a black body, whose temperature T may be regulated arbitrarily from the outside. The rest of the walls including the inner surface of the piston may be assumed as totally reflecting. Then, if the piston remains stationary and the temperature, T, constant, the radiation in the vacuum will, after a certain time, assume the character of black radiation (Sec. 50) uniform in all directions. The specific intensity, K, and the volume density, u, depend only on the temperature, T, and are independent of the volume, V, of the vacuum and hence of the position of the piston.

Hans Jelbring: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Construction of a Perpetuum Mobile

The ratio between the temperatures of the sphere surfaces will be calculated when the spheres have reached an energetic equilibrium. Such is the case when each sphere is receiving/emitting equal total power according to the S-B law. Some postulates are needed:

1 Any point on both spheres emits photons in any direction within a half sphere with the same probability.

2 S-B law is valid in vacuum.

3 The radius of the inner sphere is R1. The radius of the outer is R2. R1 < R2.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5444.pdf

In conclusion, we have examined radiative heat transfer inside hyperbolic metamaterials.

We have shown that the broadband divergence of the photonic density of states leads to gi- ant increase in radiative heat transfer compared to the Stefan-Boltzmann law in vacuum and in dielectric materials.

The single term, single object form of the S-B equation deals with radiation produced by that single object. No more, no less. The environment makes no difference to the amount of radiation produced by the object, which is defined by the temperature of the object.

Yes it does...but what you don't seem bright enough to grasp is that the ONLY place you can have a single object is in a vacuum..if you are not in a vacuum, by necessity you have an atmosphere which is then another object...and the equation switches from

(which describes a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a vacuum) to

which describes a black body (perfect or imperfect) radiating into surroundings other than a vacuum.

The second S-B equation is more complex. It involves two objects, each of which has its radiation defined by an iteration of the first S-B equation.

Yeah, you keep saying that...because you apparently are not bright enough to read a clear statement from one of the top physics departments in the world and grasp the disconnect between what you say, and they say....here, let me repeat what the physics department at Georgia State University says about the second S-B equation...

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

COOLER SURROUNDINGS ian, not another object...unless of course, you are ready to admit that an atmosphere itself is another object...which is precisely what the S-B law states if you weren't to thick to grasp the obvious.

The net flow between two areas on the two objects can be determined.

Yeah, about that.....let me know when the second law of thermodynamics...or any of the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to state that energy exchange is a net flow proposition...till then, don't bother to say it because not only does it mean nothing...it runs contrary to the laws of thermodynamics which say nothing about net energy exchanges.

The first equation is reasonably simple, the second equation rapidly escalates in complexity and is only valid for specific areas that are different than the areas next to them.

Why yes it is..and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp its meaning...what do you think about that mr wizard?

 

[SSDD]

The second S-B equation is more complex. It involves two objects, each of which has its radiation defined by an iteration of the first S-B equation.

Just in case you need more convincing that you have a flawed understanding of this point....

Thermochemical Processes: Principles and Models

First Paragraph on page 82...can't copy and paste because it is from a physics text titled "Thermochemical Processes: Principles and Models"

Model-based Process Supervision

Last paragraph on page 395...again, can't copy because it is a textbook titled ""Model-based Process Supervision: A Bond Graph Approach"

And it goes on and on and on..practically every scientific text that comes up when the topic is googled states clearly that the second equation describes a radiator radiating into its cooler surroundings...and from that alone you should have been able to deduct that the first equation describes a radiator radiating into nothing...ie VACUUM....

 

[IanC]

Here we go again. You talk semantics and I talk physics principles.

Every particle of MATTER in the universe is attempting to achieve the lowest energy potential possible. Absolute zero and the centre of gravity.

The one term S-B equation describes how an object reduces its thermal energy by radiation caused by blackbody radiation created by molecular collisions. The complications of gravity are ignored. A simplifying assumption .

When articles use the term 'into the vacuum ' it is meant as a shorthand term to remove matter-mediated energy transfer such as conduction. A simplifying assumption.

A vacuum is the absence of matter. That is the main defining characteristic. Radiation is not matter. You could theoretically define a 'perfect vacuum ', one which contains neither matter nor radiation, but that does not exist anywhere in the universe.

Outer space is nearby devoid of matter but it does contain radiation. Does it have a temperature? No, temperature is a quality of matter but it does have a 'symtom' of temperature, namely the background radiation.

One of your links describes an experiment contained within vessel capable of a hard vacuum and kept at a constant temperature. This is a simplifying set of conditions that removes the possibility of conduction and gives emitted radiation a place to go so that it doesn't interfere with the measurements of the objects contained in the vessel. Simplifying assumption because the vessel is still returning radiation to the objects.

The one term S-B equation describes the radiation created by a single object. Period. It is a function of the excess energy contained within it, that the object is trying to release as fast as it can.

The second, two term S-B equation describes the more complex situation where two objects are trying to get rid of their excess energy but are being thwarted by the radiation coming from the opposing object. It is further complicated by environment that the objects are enclosed in.

A calculation can only be made for a specific area, with a specific set of initial conditions. And that calculation is only valid for a precise moment of time that the initial conditions were true.

Theoretical first principles under ideal conditions are never found in reality but they are necessary to understand and predict reality. The single term S-B equation is a theoretical first principle that describes an ideal condition. The two term S-B equation is hideously complex even with simplifying assumptions.

You have latched on to a poorly defined term, a vacuum, and given it a meaning and characteristics far beyond its definition and reality. When you are given opposing evidence you simply change the definition.

 

[IanC]

Firstly, putting down a bare link with no reference to what idea it is supposedly supporting or where in the link the pertinent information is to be found will be summarily ignored by me. If you are too lazy to express your point in your own words then don't expect me to be industrious enough to read a whole article, digest the information, guess at what YOU thought was important, and then respond in a coordinated fashion. I am not a mind reader, and your ideas are not logical enough to infer from scattered clues.

As I said, if you are too damned lazy to look up the pertinent passages, just let me know and I will help you out when I have time....so here...

Handbook of Crystal Growth

20.4.2.1 let us first consider an opaque body at high temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the total emitted energy from a black surface into a vacuum, is given by…….

Heat Flux-based Emissivity Measurement

An energy balance is then used to determine the emissivity through the Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation. To do this, an enclosure of uniform temperature capable of holding high vacuum is used to act as a blackbody simulating radiation to deep space.

An Objectivist Individualist: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists

I have previously pointed out that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law actually only tells us the amount of radiation emitted by a surface into a vacuum. A surface in contact with another material will lose energy by other mechanisms, so one must apply the law of Conservation of Energy to determine the actual amount of radiation in many cases of material contact across an interface.

An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature

The Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation applies to a surface radiating into vacuum, not into an atmosphere able to provide competing cooling processes due to air conduction, air convection, and water evaporation.

https://dauwhe.github.io/epub-zero/acme-publishing/HeatRadiation/OPS/s013-Chapter-004.xhtml

Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation

61. For the following we imagine a perfectly evacuated hollow cylinder with an absolutely tight-fitting piston free to move in a vertical direction with no friction. A part of the walls of the cylinder, say the rigid bottom, should consist of a black body, whose temperature T may be regulated arbitrarily from the outside. The rest of the walls including the inner surface of the piston may be assumed as totally reflecting. Then, if the piston remains stationary and the temperature, T, constant, the radiation in the vacuum will, after a certain time, assume the character of black radiation (Sec. 50) uniform in all directions. The specific intensity, K, and the volume density, u, depend only on the temperature, T, and are independent of the volume, V, of the vacuum and hence of the position of the piston.

Hans Jelbring: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Construction of a Perpetuum Mobile

The ratio between the temperatures of the sphere surfaces will be calculated when the spheres have reached an energetic equilibrium. Such is the case when each sphere is receiving/emitting equal total power according to the S-B law. Some postulates are needed:

1 Any point on both spheres emits photons in any direction within a half sphere with the same probability.

2 S-B law is valid in vacuum.

3 The radius of the inner sphere is R1. The radius of the outer is R2. R1 < R2.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5444.pdf

In conclusion, we have examined radiative heat transfer inside hyperbolic metamaterials.

We have shown that the broadband divergence of the photonic density of states leads to gi- ant increase in radiative heat transfer compared to the Stefan-Boltzmann law in vacuum and in dielectric materials.

The single term, single object form of the S-B equation deals with radiation produced by that single object. No more, no less. The environment makes no difference to the amount of radiation produced by the object, which is defined by the temperature of the object.

Yes it does...but what you don't seem bright enough to grasp is that the ONLY place you can have a single object is in a vacuum..if you are not in a vacuum, by necessity you have an atmosphere which is then another object...and the equation switches from

(which describes a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a vacuum) to

which describes a black body (perfect or imperfect) radiating into surroundings other than a vacuum.

The second S-B equation is more complex. It involves two objects, each of which has its radiation defined by an iteration of the first S-B equation.

Yeah, you keep saying that...because you apparently are not bright enough to read a clear statement from one of the top physics departments in the world and grasp the disconnect between what you say, and they say....here, let me repeat what the physics department at Georgia State University says about the second S-B equation...

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

COOLER SURROUNDINGS ian, not another object...unless of course, you are ready to admit that an atmosphere itself is another object...which is precisely what the S-B law states if you weren't to thick to grasp the obvious.

The net flow between two areas on the two objects can be determined.

Yeah, about that.....let me know when the second law of thermodynamics...or any of the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to state that energy exchange is a net flow proposition...till then, don't bother to say it because not only does it mean nothing...it runs contrary to the laws of thermodynamics which say nothing about net energy exchanges.

The first equation is reasonably simple, the second equation rapidly escalates in complexity and is only valid for specific areas that are different than the areas next to them.

Why yes it is..and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp its meaning...what do you think about that mr wizard?

Your own link from UofG calls it a net radiation loss. Are you just ignoring that because it is inconvenient?

How are you defining the temperature of an object? It is easier to define a single object than it is to define the object surrounding the first object, which of course is surrounded by something else. The initial object can have a single temperature but second cannot, there will always be a temperature gradient. If two stand alone objects of a single temperature each are being examined then the radiation into the area intersecting them can be calculated but the area not intersecting is derived by the environment surrounding the two objects. Etc.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Firstly, putting down a bare link with no reference to what idea it is supposedly supporting or where in the link the pertinent information is to be found will be summarily ignored by me. If you are too lazy to express your point in your own words then don't expect me to be industrious enough to read a whole article, digest the information, guess at what YOU thought was important, and then respond in a coordinated fashion. I am not a mind reader, and your ideas are not logical enough to infer from scattered clues.

As I said, if you are too damned lazy to look up the pertinent passages, just let me know and I will help you out when I have time....so here...

Handbook of Crystal Growth

20.4.2.1 let us first consider an opaque body at high temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the total emitted energy from a black surface into a vacuum, is given by…….

Heat Flux-based Emissivity Measurement

An energy balance is then used to determine the emissivity through the Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation. To do this, an enclosure of uniform temperature capable of holding high vacuum is used to act as a blackbody simulating radiation to deep space.

An Objectivist Individualist: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists

I have previously pointed out that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law actually only tells us the amount of radiation emitted by a surface into a vacuum. A surface in contact with another material will lose energy by other mechanisms, so one must apply the law of Conservation of Energy to determine the actual amount of radiation in many cases of material contact across an interface.

An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature

The Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation applies to a surface radiating into vacuum, not into an atmosphere able to provide competing cooling processes due to air conduction, air convection, and water evaporation.

https://dauwhe.github.io/epub-zero/acme-publishing/HeatRadiation/OPS/s013-Chapter-004.xhtml

Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation

61. For the following we imagine a perfectly evacuated hollow cylinder with an absolutely tight-fitting piston free to move in a vertical direction with no friction. A part of the walls of the cylinder, say the rigid bottom, should consist of a black body, whose temperature T may be regulated arbitrarily from the outside. The rest of the walls including the inner surface of the piston may be assumed as totally reflecting. Then, if the piston remains stationary and the temperature, T, constant, the radiation in the vacuum will, after a certain time, assume the character of black radiation (Sec. 50) uniform in all directions. The specific intensity, K, and the volume density, u, depend only on the temperature, T, and are independent of the volume, V, of the vacuum and hence of the position of the piston.

Hans Jelbring: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Construction of a Perpetuum Mobile

The ratio between the temperatures of the sphere surfaces will be calculated when the spheres have reached an energetic equilibrium. Such is the case when each sphere is receiving/emitting equal total power according to the S-B law. Some postulates are needed:

1 Any point on both spheres emits photons in any direction within a half sphere with the same probability.

2 S-B law is valid in vacuum.

3 The radius of the inner sphere is R1. The radius of the outer is R2. R1 < R2.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5444.pdf

In conclusion, we have examined radiative heat transfer inside hyperbolic metamaterials.

We have shown that the broadband divergence of the photonic density of states leads to gi- ant increase in radiative heat transfer compared to the Stefan-Boltzmann law in vacuum and in dielectric materials.

The single term, single object form of the S-B equation deals with radiation produced by that single object. No more, no less. The environment makes no difference to the amount of radiation produced by the object, which is defined by the temperature of the object.

Yes it does...but what you don't seem bright enough to grasp is that the ONLY place you can have a single object is in a vacuum..if you are not in a vacuum, by necessity you have an atmosphere which is then another object...and the equation switches from

(which describes a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a vacuum) to

which describes a black body (perfect or imperfect) radiating into surroundings other than a vacuum.

The second S-B equation is more complex. It involves two objects, each of which has its radiation defined by an iteration of the first S-B equation.

Yeah, you keep saying that...because you apparently are not bright enough to read a clear statement from one of the top physics departments in the world and grasp the disconnect between what you say, and they say....here, let me repeat what the physics department at Georgia State University says about the second S-B equation...

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

COOLER SURROUNDINGS ian, not another object...unless of course, you are ready to admit that an atmosphere itself is another object...which is precisely what the S-B law states if you weren't to thick to grasp the obvious.

The net flow between two areas on the two objects can be determined.

Yeah, about that.....let me know when the second law of thermodynamics...or any of the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to state that energy exchange is a net flow proposition...till then, don't bother to say it because not only does it mean nothing...it runs contrary to the laws of thermodynamics which say nothing about net energy exchanges.

The first equation is reasonably simple, the second equation rapidly escalates in complexity and is only valid for specific areas that are different than the areas next to them.

Why yes it is..and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp its meaning...what do you think about that mr wizard?

Your own link from UofG calls it a net radiation loss. Are you just ignoring that because it is inconvenient?

How are you defining the temperature of an object? It is easier to define a single object than it is to define the object surrounding the first object, which of course is surrounded by something else. The initial object can have a single temperature but second cannot, there will always be a temperature gradient. If two stand alone objects of a single temperature each are being examined then the radiation into the area intersecting them can be calculated but the area not intersecting is derived by the environment surrounding the two objects. Etc.

Your own link from UofG calls it a net radiation loss.

Hehe. Poor Sid. Another of his sources said back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth was a thing.

 

[SSDD]

Here we go again. You talk semantics and I talk physics principles.

No...ian...you talk bullshit...you talk unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...period...and when you are shown to be wrong...you get pissy and try unsuccessfully to prove how smart you are by spreading on even more bullshit....

Every particle of MATTER in the universe is attempting to achieve the lowest energy potential possible. Absolute zero and the centre of gravity.

Right you are...which is why neither heat, nor energy (if they are indeed different things) ever move from cool to warm..such behavior would run directly contrary to the goal of every particle of matter in the universe.

The one term S-B equation describes how an object reduces its thermal energy by radiation caused by blackbody radiation created by molecular collisions. The complications of gravity are ignored. A simplifying assumption .

Sorry, but you are wrong...it describes a radiator radiating into a vacuum...nothing more...nothing less...you clearly are going to continue to believe what you believe regardless of who tells you that you are wrong...and as such, will continue to be wrong on everything that follows from that basic misunderstanding.

When articles use the term 'into the vacuum ' it is meant as a shorthand term to remove matter-mediated energy transfer such as conduction. A simplifying assumption.

An absolute necessity...presence of any other matter requires the alteration of the equation from

to

A vacuum is the absence of matter. That is the main defining characteristic. Radiation is not matter. You could theoretically define a 'perfect vacuum ', one which contains neither matter nor radiation, but that does not exist anywhere in the universe.

Sorry that you can't seem to grasp the obvious...take your radiator out of the vacuum, and you must change the equation from

to

The one term S-B equation describes the radiation created by a single object. Period. It is a function of the excess energy contained within it, that the object is trying to release as fast as it can.

And where might you find a single object other than an empty vacuum?

The second, two term S-B equation describes the more complex situation where two objects are trying to get rid of their excess energy but are being thwarted by the radiation coming from the opposing object. It is further complicated by environment that the objects are enclosed in.

Sorry, repeating bullshit over and over will never make it truth...alas ian, you are dead wrong...you have been shown to be wrong...you persist in your ignorance and therefore make yourself wrong on everything that derives from your fundamental misunderstanding...unfortunate, but true.

 

[SSDD]

A person can be right about one thing and wrong about something else...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...

...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...

You never explained how the hotter radiator knows the temperature of the cooler surroundings.
Or if fewer photons are emitted or just less energetic ones, as the temperatures equalize.

Ask S-B...they wrote the physical law...which goes something like this when the radiator is not in a vacuum....

...clearly P is altered by the temperature difference between T (the radiator) and Tc (the surroundings)...it would appear that it need not "know" anything..it simply obeys the laws of physics as every observation ever made bears out...

 

[SSDD]

Firstly, putting down a bare link with no reference to what idea it is supposedly supporting or where in the link the pertinent information is to be found will be summarily ignored by me. If you are too lazy to express your point in your own words then don't expect me to be industrious enough to read a whole article, digest the information, guess at what YOU thought was important, and then respond in a coordinated fashion. I am not a mind reader, and your ideas are not logical enough to infer from scattered clues.

As I said, if you are too damned lazy to look up the pertinent passages, just let me know and I will help you out when I have time....so here...

Handbook of Crystal Growth

20.4.2.1 let us first consider an opaque body at high temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the total emitted energy from a black surface into a vacuum, is given by…….

Heat Flux-based Emissivity Measurement

An energy balance is then used to determine the emissivity through the Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation. To do this, an enclosure of uniform temperature capable of holding high vacuum is used to act as a blackbody simulating radiation to deep space.

An Objectivist Individualist: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists

I have previously pointed out that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law actually only tells us the amount of radiation emitted by a surface into a vacuum. A surface in contact with another material will lose energy by other mechanisms, so one must apply the law of Conservation of Energy to determine the actual amount of radiation in many cases of material contact across an interface.

An Objectivist Individualist: Infrared-Absorbing Gases and the Earth's Surface Temperature

The Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation applies to a surface radiating into vacuum, not into an atmosphere able to provide competing cooling processes due to air conduction, air convection, and water evaporation.

https://dauwhe.github.io/epub-zero/acme-publishing/HeatRadiation/OPS/s013-Chapter-004.xhtml

Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation

61. For the following we imagine a perfectly evacuated hollow cylinder with an absolutely tight-fitting piston free to move in a vertical direction with no friction. A part of the walls of the cylinder, say the rigid bottom, should consist of a black body, whose temperature T may be regulated arbitrarily from the outside. The rest of the walls including the inner surface of the piston may be assumed as totally reflecting. Then, if the piston remains stationary and the temperature, T, constant, the radiation in the vacuum will, after a certain time, assume the character of black radiation (Sec. 50) uniform in all directions. The specific intensity, K, and the volume density, u, depend only on the temperature, T, and are independent of the volume, V, of the vacuum and hence of the position of the piston.

Hans Jelbring: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Construction of a Perpetuum Mobile

The ratio between the temperatures of the sphere surfaces will be calculated when the spheres have reached an energetic equilibrium. Such is the case when each sphere is receiving/emitting equal total power according to the S-B law. Some postulates are needed:

1 Any point on both spheres emits photons in any direction within a half sphere with the same probability.

2 S-B law is valid in vacuum.

3 The radius of the inner sphere is R1. The radius of the outer is R2. R1 < R2.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5444.pdf

In conclusion, we have examined radiative heat transfer inside hyperbolic metamaterials.

We have shown that the broadband divergence of the photonic density of states leads to gi- ant increase in radiative heat transfer compared to the Stefan-Boltzmann law in vacuum and in dielectric materials.

The single term, single object form of the S-B equation deals with radiation produced by that single object. No more, no less. The environment makes no difference to the amount of radiation produced by the object, which is defined by the temperature of the object.

Yes it does...but what you don't seem bright enough to grasp is that the ONLY place you can have a single object is in a vacuum..if you are not in a vacuum, by necessity you have an atmosphere which is then another object...and the equation switches from

(which describes a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a vacuum) to

which describes a black body (perfect or imperfect) radiating into surroundings other than a vacuum.

The second S-B equation is more complex. It involves two objects, each of which has its radiation defined by an iteration of the first S-B equation.

Yeah, you keep saying that...because you apparently are not bright enough to read a clear statement from one of the top physics departments in the world and grasp the disconnect between what you say, and they say....here, let me repeat what the physics department at Georgia State University says about the second S-B equation...

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

COOLER SURROUNDINGS ian, not another object...unless of course, you are ready to admit that an atmosphere itself is another object...which is precisely what the S-B law states if you weren't to thick to grasp the obvious.

The net flow between two areas on the two objects can be determined.

Yeah, about that.....let me know when the second law of thermodynamics...or any of the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to state that energy exchange is a net flow proposition...till then, don't bother to say it because not only does it mean nothing...it runs contrary to the laws of thermodynamics which say nothing about net energy exchanges.

The first equation is reasonably simple, the second equation rapidly escalates in complexity and is only valid for specific areas that are different than the areas next to them.

Why yes it is..and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp its meaning...what do you think about that mr wizard?

Your own link from UofG calls it a net radiation loss. Are you just ignoring that because it is inconvenient?

How are you defining the temperature of an object? It is easier to define a single object than it is to define the object surrounding the first object, which of course is surrounded by something else. The initial object can have a single temperature but second cannot, there will always be a temperature gradient. If two stand alone objects of a single temperature each are being examined then the radiation into the area intersecting them can be calculated but the area not intersecting is derived by the environment surrounding the two objects. Etc.

Your own link from UofG calls it a net radiation loss.

Hehe. Poor Sid. Another of his sources said back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth was a thing.

And oddly enough, they can't produce a measurement of it at ambient temperature either...tough to measure something that is only an ad hoc product of a mathematical model.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A person can be right about one thing and wrong about something else...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...

...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...

You never explained how the hotter radiator knows the temperature of the cooler surroundings.
Or if fewer photons are emitted or just less energetic ones, as the temperatures equalize.

Ask S-B...they wrote the physical law...which goes something like this when the radiator is not in a vacuum....

...clearly P is altered by the temperature difference between T (the radiator) and Tc (the surroundings)...it would appear that it need not "know" anything..it simply obeys the laws of physics as every observation ever made bears out...

clearly P is altered by the temperature difference between T (the radiator) and Tc (the surroundings)...it would appear that it need not "know" anything

It needs to know when it should stop emitting. How does it know?

 

[SSDD]

A person can be right about one thing and wrong about something else...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...

...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...

You never explained how the hotter radiator knows the temperature of the cooler surroundings.
Or if fewer photons are emitted or just less energetic ones, as the temperatures equalize.

Ask S-B...they wrote the physical law...which goes something like this when the radiator is not in a vacuum....

...clearly P is altered by the temperature difference between T (the radiator) and Tc (the surroundings)...it would appear that it need not "know" anything..it simply obeys the laws of physics as every observation ever made bears out...

clearly P is altered by the temperature difference between T (the radiator) and Tc (the surroundings)...it would appear that it need not "know" anything

It needs to know when it should stop emitting. How does it know?

As I said...ask S-B...while you are at it, go find out the fundamental mechanism that drives gravity since you feel that one must be able to describe a fundamental mechanism in order for a thing to be.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A person can be right about one thing and wrong about something else...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...

...the point is that the first SB equation describes a radiator radiating into an vacuum...

You never explained how the hotter radiator knows the temperature of the cooler surroundings.
Or if fewer photons are emitted or just less energetic ones, as the temperatures equalize.

Ask S-B...they wrote the physical law...which goes something like this when the radiator is not in a vacuum....

...clearly P is altered by the temperature difference between T (the radiator) and Tc (the surroundings)...it would appear that it need not "know" anything..it simply obeys the laws of physics as every observation ever made bears out...

clearly P is altered by the temperature difference between T (the radiator) and Tc (the surroundings)...it would appear that it need not "know" anything

It needs to know when it should stop emitting. How does it know?

As I said...ask S-B...while you are at it, go find out the fundamental mechanism that drives gravity since you feel that one must be able to describe a fundamental mechanism in order for a thing to be.

You claimed matter above 0K can stop emitting. Nothing in S-B makes that claim.

go find out the fundamental mechanism that drives gravity

Let's clear up your confusion here, first.

Why does the cooler surface of the Sun emit towards the much hotter corona?

 

[IanC]

Here we go again. You talk semantics and I talk physics principles.

No...ian...you talk bullshit...you talk unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...period...and when you are shown to be wrong...you get pissy and try unsuccessfully to prove how smart you are by spreading on even more bullshit....

Every particle of MATTER in the universe is attempting to achieve the lowest energy potential possible. Absolute zero and the centre of gravity.

Right you are...which is why neither heat, nor energy (if they are indeed different things) ever move from cool to warm..such behavior would run directly contrary to the goal of every particle of matter in the universe.

The one term S-B equation describes how an object reduces its thermal energy by radiation caused by blackbody radiation created by molecular collisions. The complications of gravity are ignored. A simplifying assumption .

Sorry, but you are wrong...it describes a radiator radiating into a vacuum...nothing more...nothing less...you clearly are going to continue to believe what you believe regardless of who tells you that you are wrong...and as such, will continue to be wrong on everything that follows from that basic misunderstanding.

When articles use the term 'into the vacuum ' it is meant as a shorthand term to remove matter-mediated energy transfer such as conduction. A simplifying assumption.

An absolute necessity...presence of any other matter requires the alteration of the equation from

to

A vacuum is the absence of matter. That is the main defining characteristic. Radiation is not matter. You could theoretically define a 'perfect vacuum ', one which contains neither matter nor radiation, but that does not exist anywhere in the universe.

Sorry that you can't seem to grasp the obvious...take your radiator out of the vacuum, and you must change the equation from

to

The one term S-B equation describes the radiation created by a single object. Period. It is a function of the excess energy contained within it, that the object is trying to release as fast as it can.

And where might you find a single object other than an empty vacuum?

The second, two term S-B equation describes the more complex situation where two objects are trying to get rid of their excess energy but are being thwarted by the radiation coming from the opposing object. It is further complicated by environment that the objects are enclosed in.

Sorry, repeating bullshit over and over will never make it truth...alas ian, you are dead wrong...you have been shown to be wrong...you persist in your ignorance and therefore make yourself wrong on everything that derives from your fundamental misunderstanding...unfortunate, but true.

Yah, well, I am sorry that you don't understand that the single term S-B equation is describing the power radiating from a single source. There is no second term, it is irrelevant to the radiation produced by the single object. That radiation is always there, all the time.

Just out of curiosity, how would you handle the case of an object above Earth's atmosphere? Pretty close to a vacuum up there. But in one direction there is radiation coming from the Sun, from the Earth in a different direction, the Cosmic Background Radiation in many other directions. Does space have a temperature? By what definition? What would you input into the two term S-B equation?

As usual, your unjustified assumptions lead you into a paradox.

 

[SSDD]

Yah, well, I am sorry that you don't understand that the single term S-B equation is describing the power radiating from a single source. There is no second term, it is irrelevant to the radiation produced by the single object. That radiation is always there, all the time.

Sorry that you seem to be unable to read...and very sorry that you fail to grasp that the only place you can have radiation coming from a single source is in an empty vacuum. Even when shown multiple credible sources stating that the first equation refers to a radiator radiating into a vacuum...you can't accept it because you can't conceive of the reality that you have misunderstood the very basics of the S-B law.