No Evidence

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
Exactly. That is why use of the room as the first term in the SB equation is really stupid. The equation should be valid for any configuration. You are making the whole computation extremely complex (and stupid) if you want to switch the roles of T and Tc.

You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.

The whole point is that you DON'T know P. That is what you are trying to compute. You lost track of the whole point of the SB equation.

You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?

Your confusion with a simple problem of a sphere in a hotter room is because you eschew two way energy flow.

I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.

T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction..

Says no one but you.

And the second law of thermodynamics, and the S-B law, and every observation and measurement ever made...just those.

All by yourself. Still.
Otherwise you could post hundreds of scientists saying precisely what you claim.
Instead, every time you post a real source to back up your claims, they end up refuting your claims.
Every.
Single.
Time.

You're like a meme for WRONG.

 

[Wuwei]

You just never get any smarter....You keep forgetting that the basic premise of the S-B law is that the temperature of T is always greater than that of Tc. You can't switch the roles of T and Tc because T is always warmer...Tc does not emit to T...EVER...energy moves in one direction...that is the problem with your bastardized version of the S-B law..it allows you to set Tc to a temperature higher than that of T. It violates the basic premise of the S-B law.

That is total crap, as usual. I have never read that T is always greater than Tc. Where have you read it.

You don't think you can determine how much energy the sphere is absorbing if you have real time information on the amount and rate of its change in temperature? Really? That's what you think? And if you know how much it is absorbing, you think that then you don't know how much energy is being radiated to it?

How quaint. You don't trust the SB equation to give the right answer and you want to measure it instead. It has been done over a century ago. It's no wonder. You have shown not to understand it at all.

I have no confusion...I realize that the equation of the S-B law in question describes nothing more than a simple, one way energy exchange between an object of one temperature and an object of another temperature...you on the other hand, have interpreted it to mean something that is so far removed from what the equation actually says that it is little wonder that you have become hopelessly lost in your crazy model trying to envision some crazy scenario where the emitter becomes the absorber and the absorber becomes the emitter...sorry, not possible.

You are the one interpreting. That should be clear. I have not interpreted it. I have read it as physics means it. See the Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites. It's little wonder you have been hopelessly lost. And you double down and become a troll. Anything to save your face in your fake physics world.

 

[SSDD]

That is total crap, as usual. I have never read that T is always greater than Tc. Where have you read it.

There is apparently a great deal you have not read...you might try reading sometime for the explicit purpose of learning something rather than skimming for anything that you think might support your beliefs.

How quaint. You don't trust the SB equation to give the right answer and you want to measure it instead. It has been done over a century ago. It's no wonder. You have shown not to understand it at all.

You think a simple energy transfer equation is suitable for every possible scenario? Now that is quaint. That is the purpose of math...to solve for X when you know Y and Z, or solve for Z when you know X and Y, or solve for Y when you know X and Z...

You are the one interpreting. That should be clear. I have not interpreted it. I have read it as physics means it. See the Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites. It's little wonder you have been hopelessly lost. And you double down and become a troll. Anything to save your face in your fake physics world.

Alas, it is you who is interpreting...I accept the equation as it is written.....you have interpreted it to the point that you must apply the S-B constant twice, you have interpreted it so that T represents both a hot radiator and cooler surroundings and Tc represents both cooler surroundings and a hot radiator....you have interpreted it to the point that you believe it can be applied to a gas with no area. You have done nothing but interpret to the point that you can't even bring yourself to say in plain english what the equation states.

 

[Wuwei]

There is apparently a great deal you have not read...you might try reading sometime for the explicit purpose of learning something rather than skimming for anything that you think might support your beliefs.

What does that have to do with the fact that nothing has been published supporting one way BB energy flow?

You think a simple energy transfer equation is suitable for every possible scenario? Now that is quaint. That is the purpose of math...to solve for X when you know Y and Z, or solve for Z when you know X and Y, or solve for Y when you know X and Z...

Yeah, yeah, so why did you bring up having to measure rather than calculate. Suddenly the SB equation is no longer your friend because you interpreted it wrong.

Alas, it is you who is interpreting...I accept the equation as it is written.....you have interpreted it to the point that you must apply the S-B constant twice, you have interpreted it so that T represents both a hot radiator and cooler surroundings and Tc represents both cooler surroundings and a hot radiator....you have interpreted it to the point that you believe it can be applied to a gas with no area. You have done nothing but interpret to the point that you can't even bring yourself to say in plain english what the equation states.

Silly, that is your interpretation. Not mine. I already told you what textbooks say in plain English. The SB equation was written to mean that T is the temperature of an object surrounded by a background, all at Tc. That is the interpretation of this equation.

What is to prevent T of the object to be colder than Tc of the background in the simple scenario of a sphere in the center of a large complex room all at Tc. You don't know how to solve that do you. Any university textbook (which I showed you) has a simple answer, but you don't understand it, do you.

OK since you bring up a gas, suppose the sphere with temperature T is suspended in the air at temperature Tc at night. We both agree on what happens if the sphere is hotter than the air. It will radiate.

However, suppose the sphere is colder than the air, tell me what the several variables P, A, T, and Tc are in the above SB equation.

 

[SSDD]

What does that have to do with the fact that nothing has been published supporting one way BB energy flow?

Nothing but the very laws of physics.

Yeah, yeah, so why did you bring up having to measure rather than calculate. Suddenly the SB equation is no longer your friend because you interpreted it wrong.

Again...you are the one interpreting...It describes a simple one way gross energy movement between warm and cool….just like what happens in the real world...

Silly, that is your interpretation. Not mine. I already told you what textbooks say in plain English. The SB equation was written to mean that T is the temperature of an object surrounded by a background, all at Tc. That is the interpretation of this equation.

What is to prevent T of the object to be colder than Tc of the background in the simple scenario of a sphere in the center of a large complex room all at Tc. You don't know how to solve that do you. Any university textbook (which I showed you) has a simple answer, but you don't understand it, do you.

Because, you idiot...energy only moves in one direction...it moves from warm to cool...whichever is cooler is going to be Tc...No object can be both T and Tc as you seem to believe.

OK since you bring up a gas, suppose the sphere with temperature T is suspended in the air at temperature Tc at night. We both agree on what happens if the sphere is hotter than the air. It will radiate.

You can apply the S-B equation to the sphere because it has an area...you can not apply it to a gas which has no area....and models that apply the S-B equation to energy transfers in a gas are inherently flawed...as evidenced by the fact that they can't predict reality...

However, suppose the sphere is colder than the air, tell me what the several variables P, A, T, and Tc are in the above SB equation.

You can not apply the S-B equation to a gas...Sorry you don't get that...a gas has no area...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does that have to do with the fact that nothing has been published supporting one way BB energy flow?

Nothing but the very laws of physics.

Yeah, yeah, so why did you bring up having to measure rather than calculate. Suddenly the SB equation is no longer your friend because you interpreted it wrong.

Again...you are the one interpreting...It describes a simple one way gross energy movement between warm and cool….just like what happens in the real world...

Silly, that is your interpretation. Not mine. I already told you what textbooks say in plain English. The SB equation was written to mean that T is the temperature of an object surrounded by a background, all at Tc. That is the interpretation of this equation.

What is to prevent T of the object to be colder than Tc of the background in the simple scenario of a sphere in the center of a large complex room all at Tc. You don't know how to solve that do you. Any university textbook (which I showed you) has a simple answer, but you don't understand it, do you.

Because, you idiot...energy only moves in one direction...it moves from warm to cool...whichever is cooler is going to be Tc...No object can be both T and Tc as you seem to believe.

OK since you bring up a gas, suppose the sphere with temperature T is suspended in the air at temperature Tc at night. We both agree on what happens if the sphere is hotter than the air. It will radiate.

You can apply the S-B equation to the sphere because it has an area...you can not apply it to a gas which has no area....and models that apply the S-B equation to energy transfers in a gas are inherently flawed...as evidenced by the fact that they can't predict reality...

However, suppose the sphere is colder than the air, tell me what the several variables P, A, T, and Tc are in the above SB equation.

You can not apply the S-B equation to a gas...Sorry you don't get that...a gas has no area...

Nothing but the very laws of physics.

You're lying. You have no reputable source that agrees with your one way claim.

 

[SSDD]

What does that have to do with the fact that nothing has been published supporting one way BB energy flow?

Nothing but the very laws of physics.

Yeah, yeah, so why did you bring up having to measure rather than calculate. Suddenly the SB equation is no longer your friend because you interpreted it wrong.

Again...you are the one interpreting...It describes a simple one way gross energy movement between warm and cool….just like what happens in the real world...

Silly, that is your interpretation. Not mine. I already told you what textbooks say in plain English. The SB equation was written to mean that T is the temperature of an object surrounded by a background, all at Tc. That is the interpretation of this equation.

What is to prevent T of the object to be colder than Tc of the background in the simple scenario of a sphere in the center of a large complex room all at Tc. You don't know how to solve that do you. Any university textbook (which I showed you) has a simple answer, but you don't understand it, do you.

Because, you idiot...energy only moves in one direction...it moves from warm to cool...whichever is cooler is going to be Tc...No object can be both T and Tc as you seem to believe.

OK since you bring up a gas, suppose the sphere with temperature T is suspended in the air at temperature Tc at night. We both agree on what happens if the sphere is hotter than the air. It will radiate.

You can apply the S-B equation to the sphere because it has an area...you can not apply it to a gas which has no area....and models that apply the S-B equation to energy transfers in a gas are inherently flawed...as evidenced by the fact that they can't predict reality...

However, suppose the sphere is colder than the air, tell me what the several variables P, A, T, and Tc are in the above SB equation.

You can not apply the S-B equation to a gas...Sorry you don't get that...a gas has no area...

Nothing but the very laws of physics.

You're lying. You have no reputable source that agrees with your one way claim.

Just the second law of thermodynamics which says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm....and the S-B law which describes a one way gross movement of energy from warm to cool. Just those things...and you know what? They are plenty.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does that have to do with the fact that nothing has been published supporting one way BB energy flow?

Nothing but the very laws of physics.

Yeah, yeah, so why did you bring up having to measure rather than calculate. Suddenly the SB equation is no longer your friend because you interpreted it wrong.

Again...you are the one interpreting...It describes a simple one way gross energy movement between warm and cool….just like what happens in the real world...

Silly, that is your interpretation. Not mine. I already told you what textbooks say in plain English. The SB equation was written to mean that T is the temperature of an object surrounded by a background, all at Tc. That is the interpretation of this equation.

What is to prevent T of the object to be colder than Tc of the background in the simple scenario of a sphere in the center of a large complex room all at Tc. You don't know how to solve that do you. Any university textbook (which I showed you) has a simple answer, but you don't understand it, do you.

Because, you idiot...energy only moves in one direction...it moves from warm to cool...whichever is cooler is going to be Tc...No object can be both T and Tc as you seem to believe.

OK since you bring up a gas, suppose the sphere with temperature T is suspended in the air at temperature Tc at night. We both agree on what happens if the sphere is hotter than the air. It will radiate.

You can apply the S-B equation to the sphere because it has an area...you can not apply it to a gas which has no area....and models that apply the S-B equation to energy transfers in a gas are inherently flawed...as evidenced by the fact that they can't predict reality...

However, suppose the sphere is colder than the air, tell me what the several variables P, A, T, and Tc are in the above SB equation.

You can not apply the S-B equation to a gas...Sorry you don't get that...a gas has no area...

Nothing but the very laws of physics.

You're lying. You have no reputable source that agrees with your one way claim.

Just the second law of thermodynamics which says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm....and the S-B law which describes a one way gross movement of energy from warm to cool. Just those things...and you know what? They are plenty.

Just the second law of thermodynamics which says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm..

You're lying. It says no such thing. If it did you'd have countless sources you could post that said energy, and radiation, only flows one way.

You don't. Because you're wrong.

Now explain why energy can move from the Sun's surface to the Sun's corona.
From the Earth's surface to the Earth's thermosphere.
You won't, because you can't, because you lie.

 

[SSDD]

You're lying. It says no such thing. If it did you'd have countless sources you could post that said energy, and radiation, only flows one way.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics | Boundless Physics
​

• Many processes occur spontaneously in one direction only, and the second law of thermodynamics deals with the direction taken by spontaneous processes.
• According to the second law of thermodynamics, it is impossible for any process to have heat transfer from a cooler to a hotter object as its sole result.

12.3 Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy | Texas Gateway

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a system either increases or remains constant in any spontaneous process; it never decreases. An important implication of this law is that heat transfers energy spontaneously from higher- to lower-temperature objects, but never spontaneously in the reverse direction.

My note: energy moving from cool to warm would be a decrease in entropy..not an increase

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hot body.

Second law of thermodynamics - Energy Education

"Heat will always flow spontaneously from hotter substances to colder ones".

I could go on, but have done so before and it didn't sink in then either.

​

Now explain why energy can move from the Sun's surface to the Sun's corona.

I have done that over and over as well...the movement of energy from the surface of the sun to the corona is not spontaneous...you can move as much energy from cool to hot as you like, if you put work into doing it..if you put work into doing a thing..it is not spontaneous...all spontaneous processes are irreversible.

As to the earth's thermosphere...it is very sparsely populated by molecules...it isn't as if the thermosphere is a solid hot boundry. If you were in the thermosphere unprotected, you would freeze solid.....radiation can easily pass through

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're lying. It says no such thing. If it did you'd have countless sources you could post that said energy, and radiation, only flows one way.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics | Boundless Physics
​

• Many processes occur spontaneously in one direction only, and the second law of thermodynamics deals with the direction taken by spontaneous processes.
• According to the second law of thermodynamics, it is impossible for any process to have heat transfer from a cooler to a hotter object as its sole result.

12.3 Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy | Texas Gateway

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a system either increases or remains constant in any spontaneous process; it never decreases. An important implication of this law is that heat transfers energy spontaneously from higher- to lower-temperature objects, but never spontaneously in the reverse direction.

My note: energy moving from cool to warm would be a decrease in entropy..not an increase

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hot body.

Second law of thermodynamics - Energy Education

"Heat will always flow spontaneously from hotter substances to colder ones".

I could go on, but have done so before and it didn't sink in then either.

​

Now explain why energy can move from the Sun's surface to the Sun's corona.

I have done that over and over as well...the movement of energy from the surface of the sun to the corona is not spontaneous...you can move as much energy from cool to hot as you like, if you put work into doing it..if you put work into doing a thing..it is not spontaneous...all spontaneous processes are irreversible.

As to the earth's thermosphere...it is very sparsely populated by molecules...it isn't as if the thermosphere is a solid hot boundry. If you were in the thermosphere unprotected, you would freeze solid.....radiation can easily pass through

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body

We're not discussing heat. We're discussing energy, specifically radiation.

I have done that over and over as well...the movement of energy from the surface of the sun to the corona is not spontaneous...

Why not?

 

[SSDD]

We're not discussing heat. We're discussing energy, specifically radiation.

Is heat energy? The answer is yes...it is also radiation...The distinction is made to help simple folks like yourself understand but apparently with you, they missed the mark.

Why not?

The latest theory, as I have already told you is that Alfven waves are providing the work needed to move energy to and through the corona...no one other than you is suggesting that energy is spontaneously moving from the cooler surface to the corona.

 

[Wuwei]

Nothing but the very laws of physics.

Nope. No physicist agrees with you.

Again...you are the one interpreting...It describes a simple one way gross energy movement between warm and cool….just like what happens in the real world...

Nope. No physicist agrees with you.

Because, you idiot...energy only moves in one direction...it moves from warm to cool...whichever is cooler is going to be Tc...No object can be both T and Tc as you seem to believe.

Nope. No physicist agrees with you.

You can apply the S-B equation to the sphere because it has an area...you can not apply it to a gas which has no area....and models that apply the S-B equation to energy transfers in a gas are inherently flawed...as evidenced by the fact that they can't predict reality...

You can not apply the S-B equation to a gas...Sorry you don't get that...a gas has no area...

Are you saying there is no formula that tells you what happens to a cold sphere in a warm atmosphere? A physicist could do it but you seem to be baffled. If you know the formula just say it. If not, you get an F minus in thermodynamics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're not discussing heat. We're discussing energy, specifically radiation.

Is heat energy? The answer is yes...it is also radiation...The distinction is made to help simple folks like yourself understand but apparently with you, they missed the mark.

Why not?

The latest theory, as I have already told you is that Alfven waves are providing the work needed to move energy to and through the corona...no one other than you is suggesting that energy is spontaneously moving from the cooler surface to the corona.

Is heat energy?

Heat is heat.
You have no real sources that say radiation cannot travel from cool to hot.

You have no real sources that say radiation ceases at equilibrium.

You have no real sources that say radiating works like a dimmer switch.
​

The latest theory, as I have already told you is that Alfven waves are providing the work needed to move energy to and through the corona..​

No.
Alfven Waves may explain why it is hot.
You won't (can't) explain why the surface is allowed to radiate toward the hotter matter.​

 

[SSDD]

Nope. No physicist agrees with you.

Doesn't matter...the statement of the physical law does.

Nope. No physicist agrees with you.

Doesn't matter...the statement of the physical law does.

Nope. No physicist agrees with you.

Doesn't matter..the physical laws do

Are you saying there is no formula that tells you what happens to a cold sphere in a warm atmosphere? A physicist could do it but you seem to be baffled. If you know the formula just say it. If not, you get an F minus in thermodynamics.

Not at all...I am saying that you can't apply the S-B equation to a gas...if you put your cold sphere in a warm environment, and measure the change every minute, its change in temperature each minute is proportional to the difference between the temperature of its environment and its own temperature at the beginning of the minute. Refer to Newton's law of cooling.

 

[Wuwei]

Not at all...I am saying that you can't apply the S-B equation to a gas...if you put your cold sphere in a warm environment, and measure the change every minute, its change in temperature each minute is proportional to the difference between the temperature of its environment and its own temperature at the beginning of the minute. Refer to Newton's law of cooling.

Good God. You want to replace a simple physics computation by going outside with a cold sphere, a stop watch and a thermometer! You are going through ridiculous lengths because you refuse to believe physics theory.

 

[SSDD]

Not at all...I am saying that you can't apply the S-B equation to a gas...if you put your cold sphere in a warm environment, and measure the change every minute, its change in temperature each minute is proportional to the difference between the temperature of its environment and its own temperature at the beginning of the minute. Refer to Newton's law of cooling.

Good God. You want to replace a simple physics computation by going outside with a cold sphere, a stop watch and a thermometer! You are going through ridiculous lengths because you refuse to believe physics theory.

No...I just want to get it right...if you try to apply the S-B equation to a gas, you will be wrong...

And who says that you have to go outside? Ever hear of IR thermometers?...or if you are setting up your stupid experiment, you might install a thermometer on the sphere when you hang it up..

 

[Wuwei]

Not at all...I am saying that you can't apply the S-B equation to a gas...if you put your cold sphere in a warm environment, and measure the change every minute, its change in temperature each minute is proportional to the difference between the temperature of its environment and its own temperature at the beginning of the minute. Refer to Newton's law of cooling.

Good God. You want to replace a simple physics computation by going outside with a cold sphere, a stop watch and a thermometer! You are going through ridiculous lengths because you refuse to believe physics theory.

No...I just want to get it right...if you try to apply the S-B equation to a gas, you will be wrong...

And who says that you have to go outside? Ever hear of IR thermometers?...or if you are setting up your stupid experiment, you might install a thermometer on the sphere when you hang it up..

LOL you haven't the foggiest idea how to compute such a simple thing and you talk about going through all the trouble of repeating the experiments of Stefan instead. That is just too funny.

With a cold sphere in a room or outside air, you fail.
And you also fail with figuring out where the 12,500 W/m² from the surface of Venus goes.
Have you thought about perhaps changing your fake ideas of thermodynamic? No, I didn't think so.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...The S-B law doesn't work on a gas...use it and you will be wrong...just like the climate models....but you guys are able to yank your own chains enough to convince yourselves that you are right....

 

[SSDD]

Here you moron...as if this would actually get through that thick and very stupid skull of yours...

T(t) = Ts + (T0 - Ts ) e(-kt)

T(t) = temperature of an object at a certain time (Kelvin, K)

t = time (s)

Ts = temperature of the surroundings (Kelvin, K)

T0 = starting temperature of the object (Kelvin, K)

k = a cooling constant, specific to the object (1/s)

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...The S-B law doesn't work on a gas...use it and you will be wrong...just like the climate models....but you guys are able to yank your own chains enough to convince yourselves that you are right....

You are still funny. OK let's make this easier for you. What formula do you use for the radiation behavior of a cold sphere in a large complex room at a uniformly higher temperature. You still didn't get that right.