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.
from the SB explanation,.... The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.You got net and gross backwards.So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross? They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed. They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change
.
Chalk up one more thing you got wrong...
Here....from the math dictionary...
difference - The result of subtracting one number from another. How much one number differs from another.
Net - What is left after all deductions have been made.
still can't prove your two way hypothesis. in SB, T is always greater than Tc. you need more memory, cause you keep asking me to provide that same comment.Which puts the onus on you to prove me wrong! I’ll waitI never said I disagree with that! I said that obects radiate warm to cool. While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting. And vice a versa the warm emitting object won’t absorb. When the cool object stops absorbing, it can then emit as long as a cooler object is near. I never said the cool object won’t ever radiate!All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation. The hotter an object is the more energy it radiates per second.
Infrared Radiation – electromagnetic waves, absorb, emit, infra red, PIR
Be sure to post your sources that say otherwise.
While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting
Yes, I remember your error.
All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation.
No mention of, "unless warmer matter is nearby".
if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate
Still no proof of your claim? I'll wait.
BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool. You get that right?
In turn, I will wait for you two way proof. SB and 2nd law are all I need to make my point. now show me which law is your evidence. still waiting.
from the SB explanation,.... The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.You got net and gross backwards.So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross? They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed. They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change
.
Chalk up one more thing you got wrong...
Here....from the math dictionary...
difference - The result of subtracting one number from another. How much one number differs from another.
Net - What is left after all deductions have been made.
radiation from hot bodies. doesn't say jack about cold bodies. not a word. And net only means the amount of energy the hot body lost to the cold body and the received energy by the cold body. It isn't that damn difficult.
from the SB explanation,.... The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.
radiation from hot bodies. doesn't say jack about cold bodies. not a word. And net only means the amount of energy the hot body lost to the cold body and the received energy by the cold body. It isn't that damn difficult.
from the SB explanation,.... The relevance that governs net radiation from hot bodies is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law.
radiation from hot bodies. doesn't say jack about cold bodies. not a word. And net only means the amount of energy the hot body lost to the cold body and the received energy by the cold body. It isn't that damn difficult.
They know it is gross energy movement...but just can't bring themselves to accept it because it is in conflict with their beliefs...No one could possibly be so stupid as to not know it...well...maybe toddler and the hairball...
How about this skidmark...I have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation. Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.
Post that Einstein datastill can't prove your two way hypothesis. in SB, T is always greater than Tc. you need more memory, cause you keep asking me to provide that same comment.Which puts the onus on you to prove me wrong! I’ll waitI never said I disagree with that! I said that obects radiate warm to cool. While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting. And vice a versa the warm emitting object won’t absorb. When the cool object stops absorbing, it can then emit as long as a cooler object is near. I never said the cool object won’t ever radiate!
While the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting
Yes, I remember your error.
All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation.
No mention of, "unless warmer matter is nearby".
if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate
Still no proof of your claim? I'll wait.
BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool. You get that right?
In turn, I will wait for you two way proof. SB and 2nd law are all I need to make my point. now show me which law is your evidence. still waiting.
still can't prove your two way hypothesis.
It's not my hypothesis.
And it's clearly seen in SB and every observation ever.
Unlike your parroting of SSDD's lonely hypothesis.
in SB, T is always greater than Tc.
You're lying. Again.
BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool.
You feeling okay? Of course the net flow is from warm to cool.
Whether T is warmer or Tc is warmer.
In turn, I will wait for you two way proof.
Even Einstein (and everyone else in physics) talked about two way flow at equilibrium.
If you have a link showing all those claims were refuted, post it already.
Well if he says that, how would he be able to provide you evidence of something that isn’t happening? Why don’t you just show it does? You know empirically observedI have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation. Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.
Post that Einstein datastill can't prove your two way hypothesis. in SB, T is always greater than Tc. you need more memory, cause you keep asking me to provide that same comment.Which puts the onus on you to prove me wrong! I’ll waitWhile the cool object absorbs, it is not emitting
Yes, I remember your error.
All objects emit and absorb infrared radiation.
No mention of, "unless warmer matter is nearby".
if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate
Still no proof of your claim? I'll wait.
BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool. You get that right?
In turn, I will wait for you two way proof. SB and 2nd law are all I need to make my point. now show me which law is your evidence. still waiting.
still can't prove your two way hypothesis.
It's not my hypothesis.
And it's clearly seen in SB and every observation ever.
Unlike your parroting of SSDD's lonely hypothesis.
in SB, T is always greater than Tc.
You're lying. Again.
BTW, if Tc is hotter than T, then the flow is still warm to cool.
You feeling okay? Of course the net flow is from warm to cool.
Whether T is warmer or Tc is warmer.
In turn, I will wait for you two way proof.
Even Einstein (and everyone else in physics) talked about two way flow at equilibrium.
If you have a link showing all those claims were refuted, post it already.
I have asked Same Shit for any empirical observations of ANY matter under ANY circumstances that has completely ceased thermal radiation. Unsurprisingly, I've seen diddly come back.
I didn't say at the same temperature. I said, repeatedly, ANY matter under ANY circumstances. What I'd really like to see is a measurement of some matter radiating that goes to zero when warmer matter is placed behind the sensor. But I'm obviously willing to give you a lot of flexibility. EMPIRICAL evidence of ANY matter under ANY circumstances not radiating per its temperature.
Fine. Show us empirical evidence of matter in the presence of other matter the same temperature NOT RADIATING.
If a hollow sphere is uniformly red hot you would say there is no radiation in the inside at equilibrium because it's all the same temperature inside and out. The inside would be pitch black if there is no radiation.Wouldn't two objects of the same temperature constitute matter and a circumstance...
If you can't measure energy moving between objects of the same temperature but you can measure energy moving between objects of different temperatures...the measurement between the two objects of the same temperature is zero...
I don't need flexibility...every observation of spontaneous energy movement ever made is of energy moving in one direction...warm to cool..
wishes
If a hollow sphere is uniformly red hot you would say there is no radiation in the inside at equilibrium because it's all the same temperature inside and out. The inside would be pitch black if there is no radiation.
You have no answer do you.If wishes were horses...beggars would ride...go find some real evidence...
wishes
If a hollow sphere is uniformly red hot you would say there is no radiation in the inside at equilibrium because it's all the same temperature inside and out. The inside would be pitch black if there is no radiation.
If wishes were horses...beggars would ride...go find some real evidence...
