Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[jc456]

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.

Here's that form of the Second Law that you copied from. You left a bit of it out.

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. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

This is the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."
---

It was astonishingly dishonest of you to leave that part out. It flatly contradicts your idiot claims, and it flat out says we're right.

So, you know you're lying here, yet you continue to lie. At this stage, the only purpose you serve is to illustrate how cult devotion leads to moral decrepitude.

There is no such thing as "net flow"... A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

There is no such thing as "net flow"...

A 10C object is prohibited from radiating toward a 20C object? Why?
Force fields? Smart photons? What?

A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

While the 10C object radiates toward the 20C object, the 20C object radiates MORE toward the 10C object.

They BOTH radiate, but the cooler object warms while the warmer object cools.
Because "net flow".

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again, 2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb. get it? absorbed? hahahaahaha what a boob you are.

anyway, you still haven't presented observed empirical evidence that it does what you said. you have been losing this battle for over three years now.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again

So which is it?

2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Stefan-Boltzmann thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

If you ever pull your head out of your ass, by all means link where I said anything about "heating" the sun.

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's that form of the Second Law that you copied from. You left a bit of it out.

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. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

This is the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."
---

It was astonishingly dishonest of you to leave that part out. It flatly contradicts your idiot claims, and it flat out says we're right.

So, you know you're lying here, yet you continue to lie. At this stage, the only purpose you serve is to illustrate how cult devotion leads to moral decrepitude.

There is no such thing as "net flow"... A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

There is no such thing as "net flow"...

A 10C object is prohibited from radiating toward a 20C object? Why?
Force fields? Smart photons? What?

A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

While the 10C object radiates toward the 20C object, the 20C object radiates MORE toward the 10C object.

They BOTH radiate, but the cooler object warms while the warmer object cools.
Because "net flow".

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again, 2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb. get it? absorbed? hahahaahaha what a boob you are.

anyway, you still haven't presented observed empirical evidence that it does what you said. you have been losing this battle for over three years now.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again

So which is it?

2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Stefan-Boltzmann thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

If you ever pull your head out of your ass, by all means link where I said anything about "heating" the sun.

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

 

[gfm7175]

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.

Here's that form of the Second Law that you copied from. You left a bit of it out.

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. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

This is the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."
---

It was astonishingly dishonest of you to leave that part out. It flatly contradicts your idiot claims, and it flat out says we're right.

So, you know you're lying here, yet you continue to lie. At this stage, the only purpose you serve is to illustrate how cult devotion leads to moral decrepitude.

There is no such thing as "net flow"... A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

There is no such thing as "net flow"...

A 10C object is prohibited from radiating toward a 20C object? Why?
Force fields? Smart photons? What?

A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

While the 10C object radiates toward the 20C object, the 20C object radiates MORE toward the 10C object.

They BOTH radiate, but the cooler object warms while the warmer object cools.
Because "net flow".

There is no such thing as "net flow" of heat. Heat ONLY flows in ONE direction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Here's that form of the Second Law that you copied from. You left a bit of it out.

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. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

This is the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."
---

It was astonishingly dishonest of you to leave that part out. It flatly contradicts your idiot claims, and it flat out says we're right.

So, you know you're lying here, yet you continue to lie. At this stage, the only purpose you serve is to illustrate how cult devotion leads to moral decrepitude.

There is no such thing as "net flow"... A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

There is no such thing as "net flow"...

A 10C object is prohibited from radiating toward a 20C object? Why?
Force fields? Smart photons? What?

A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

While the 10C object radiates toward the 20C object, the 20C object radiates MORE toward the 10C object.

They BOTH radiate, but the cooler object warms while the warmer object cools.
Because "net flow".

There is no such thing as "net flow" of heat. Heat ONLY flows in ONE direction.

I'm talking about photons. Both objects radiate photons.
At all times in all directions.

 

[jc456]

There is no such thing as "net flow"... A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

There is no such thing as "net flow"...

A 10C object is prohibited from radiating toward a 20C object? Why?
Force fields? Smart photons? What?

A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

While the 10C object radiates toward the 20C object, the 20C object radiates MORE toward the 10C object.

They BOTH radiate, but the cooler object warms while the warmer object cools.
Because "net flow".

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again, 2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb. get it? absorbed? hahahaahaha what a boob you are.

anyway, you still haven't presented observed empirical evidence that it does what you said. you have been losing this battle for over three years now.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again

So which is it?

2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Stefan-Boltzmann thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

If you ever pull your head out of your ass, by all means link where I said anything about "heating" the sun.

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no such thing as "net flow"...

A 10C object is prohibited from radiating toward a 20C object? Why?
Force fields? Smart photons? What?

A colder body cannot warm a hotter body.

While the 10C object radiates toward the 20C object, the 20C object radiates MORE toward the 10C object.

They BOTH radiate, but the cooler object warms while the warmer object cools.
Because "net flow".

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again, 2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb. get it? absorbed? hahahaahaha what a boob you are.

anyway, you still haven't presented observed empirical evidence that it does what you said. you have been losing this battle for over three years now.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again

So which is it?

2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Stefan-Boltzmann thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

If you ever pull your head out of your ass, by all means link where I said anything about "heating" the sun.

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

Heat flows to cold and that's it

That's right.

Radiate = heat,

Photons aren't heat.

20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

If there is a jc456 caveat to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, you should submit it for publication.
You'd get a Nobel for sure.

 

[jc456]

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again, 2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb. get it? absorbed? hahahaahaha what a boob you are.

anyway, you still haven't presented observed empirical evidence that it does what you said. you have been losing this battle for over three years now.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again

So which is it?

2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Stefan-Boltzmann thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

If you ever pull your head out of your ass, by all means link where I said anything about "heating" the sun.

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

Heat flows to cold and that's it

That's right.

Radiate = heat,

Photons aren't heat.

20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

If there is a jc456 caveat to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, you should submit it for publication.
You'd get a Nobel for sure.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

nope, all you need to do is supply an experiment that it does. see how that works.

BTW, I know already you won't and can't. because, wait for it, one doesn't exist. prove me wrong.

 

[ReinyDays]

You folks should try to agree on which definition of temperature you're using ... the apples vs. oranges argument doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dude, it's been explained to you over an over again

So which is it?

2nd law thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Stefan-Boltzmann thing you just can't seem to absorb.

Hey you still trying to warm the sun with your flashlight?

If you ever pull your head out of your ass, by all means link where I said anything about "heating" the sun.

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

Heat flows to cold and that's it

That's right.

Radiate = heat,

Photons aren't heat.

20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

If there is a jc456 caveat to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, you should submit it for publication.
You'd get a Nobel for sure.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

nope, all you need to do is supply an experiment that it does. see how that works.

BTW, I know already you won't and can't. because, wait for it, one doesn't exist. prove me wrong.

If you need me to prove Stefan-Boltzmann, you're going to be disappointed.

Feel free to disprove it...…….or not, your ignorance doesn't impact me at all.

 

[ReinyDays]

S-B describes an ideal radiator ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of energy at equilibrium ... I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ... I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

S-B describes an ideal radiator ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of energy at equilibrium ... I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ... I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ...

Well, this thread was mostly created for someone who believes a thermometer between two 10ºC objects won't read anything, because objects at equilibrium cease all radiating.

I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

Their confusion is due to their comprehensive misunderstanding of physics.

 

[ReinyDays]

Well ... math is hard ... what do you expect? ...

 

[jc456]

that 2nd law thing still has you bamboozled I see. it's ok, all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object. I've asked too many times to count. you still haven't. why not?

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun like your 10C object at the 20C object is doing? is that what you meant?

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

Heat flows to cold and that's it

That's right.

Radiate = heat,

Photons aren't heat.

20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

If there is a jc456 caveat to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, you should submit it for publication.
You'd get a Nobel for sure.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

nope, all you need to do is supply an experiment that it does. see how that works.

BTW, I know already you won't and can't. because, wait for it, one doesn't exist. prove me wrong.

If you need me to prove Stefan-Boltzmann, you're going to be disappointed.

Feel free to disprove it...…….or not, your ignorance doesn't impact me at all.

like I said, I knew you wouldn't because you can't. just admit it, you can't and end this dialog. why do you wish to wash rinse repeat your nonsense you know you can't prove? you look small.

 

[jc456]

S-B describes an ideal radiator ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of energy at equilibrium ... I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ... I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ...

Well, this thread was mostly created for someone who believes a thermometer between two 10ºC objects won't read anything, because objects at equilibrium cease all radiating.

I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

Their confusion is due to their comprehensive misunderstanding of physics.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures. I asked for you to prove it. go for it. post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

all you need to do is post that experiment that shows that 10C object radiating at the 20C object.

Stefan-Boltzmann says they both radiate.
Feel free to post your proof that they don't.

and on the sun and flashlight thingy, are you instead saying the flashlight is cooling off the sun

Sorry that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is too complex for you.
If you understood it, you wouldn't make AOC level comments when discussing it.

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

Heat flows to cold and that's it

That's right.

Radiate = heat,

Photons aren't heat.

20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

If there is a jc456 caveat to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, you should submit it for publication.
You'd get a Nobel for sure.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

nope, all you need to do is supply an experiment that it does. see how that works.

BTW, I know already you won't and can't. because, wait for it, one doesn't exist. prove me wrong.

If you need me to prove Stefan-Boltzmann, you're going to be disappointed.

Feel free to disprove it...…….or not, your ignorance doesn't impact me at all.

like I said, I knew you wouldn't because you can't. just admit it, you can't and end this dialog. why do you wish to wash rinse repeat your nonsense you know you can't prove? you look small.

I admit, your need for me to prove Stefan-Boltzmann is cute.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

S-B describes an ideal radiator ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of energy at equilibrium ... I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ... I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ...

Well, this thread was mostly created for someone who believes a thermometer between two 10ºC objects won't read anything, because objects at equilibrium cease all radiating.

I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

Their confusion is due to their comprehensive misunderstanding of physics.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures. I asked for you to prove it. go for it. post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.

Because the two objects stop radiating?

 

[jc456]

again, I agree they both radiate. I've always said that. your analogy is the issue, not the object radiating.

Only a fool would say they don't. what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other. And I've asked you for the experiment that shows it. fk dude, how hard can that be for you to post?

Heat flows to cold and that's it. Radiate = heat, another thing you can't seem to grasp. 20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

what isn't true is that the 10C will radiate at the 20C object when they are next to each other.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

Heat flows to cold and that's it

That's right.

Radiate = heat,

Photons aren't heat.

20C radiates at 10C and that's it.

If there is a jc456 caveat to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, you should submit it for publication.
You'd get a Nobel for sure.

Great. All you need to do is post a source that agrees and explains why.

nope, all you need to do is supply an experiment that it does. see how that works.

BTW, I know already you won't and can't. because, wait for it, one doesn't exist. prove me wrong.

If you need me to prove Stefan-Boltzmann, you're going to be disappointed.

Feel free to disprove it...…….or not, your ignorance doesn't impact me at all.

like I said, I knew you wouldn't because you can't. just admit it, you can't and end this dialog. why do you wish to wash rinse repeat your nonsense you know you can't prove? you look small.

I admit, your need for me to prove Stefan-Boltzmann is cute.

you can write that all day, I'm still waiting on your experiment. We're waiting!!!

 

[jc456]

S-B describes an ideal radiator ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of energy at equilibrium ... I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ... I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ...

Well, this thread was mostly created for someone who believes a thermometer between two 10ºC objects won't read anything, because objects at equilibrium cease all radiating.

I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

Their confusion is due to their comprehensive misunderstanding of physics.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures. I asked for you to prove it. go for it. post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.

Because the two objects stop radiating?

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects and and that's all you'll read. prove me wrong. I give a shit if you think they're radiating at that point, the heat flow is room to objects. and that's it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

S-B describes an ideal radiator ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of energy at equilibrium ... I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ... I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ...

Well, this thread was mostly created for someone who believes a thermometer between two 10ºC objects won't read anything, because objects at equilibrium cease all radiating.

I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

Their confusion is due to their comprehensive misunderstanding of physics.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures. I asked for you to prove it. go for it. post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.

Because the two objects stop radiating?

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects and and that's all you'll read. prove me wrong. I give a shit if you think they're radiating at that point, the heat flow is room to objects. and that's it.

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects

I'm only interested in the flow between the objects.

Does it stop?

 

[jc456]

S-B describes an ideal radiator ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of energy at equilibrium ... I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ... I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

I do see the point you're trying to make, place a thermometer between two 10ºC objects and it will read 10ºC ...

Well, this thread was mostly created for someone who believes a thermometer between two 10ºC objects won't read anything, because objects at equilibrium cease all radiating.

I have no problem with "net energy" but if that confuses people maybe best not use the term ...

Their confusion is due to their comprehensive misunderstanding of physics.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures. I asked for you to prove it. go for it. post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures.

Because the two objects stop radiating?

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects and and that's all you'll read. prove me wrong. I give a shit if you think they're radiating at that point, the heat flow is room to objects. and that's it.

because the heat of the room flows to the two cooler objects

I'm only interested in the flow between the objects.

Does it stop?

why do I care? the heat flow is room to objects period. whatever you wish or think happens between the objects I don't care. I know what is happening and friend, you'll never prove your point. NEVER!!!! BTW, the two objects will warm to room temperature eventually.