Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold

You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one! Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate? Each is its own gaseous item? The earth is ice cold compared to any star. Unless you got any material that shows observed radiation

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one

The Sun isn't close to being the hottest star.

Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate?

According to SSDD's misinterpretation, a 6000K star won't radiate toward an 8000K star.
Right?

Which star is hotter?

Lots of stars are hotter than the Sun.

 

[jc456]

Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.

Planck's law also deals with a radiator radiating into a cooler background...no two way energy flow there either...

Of course I do...I also happen to be out here in the cooler surroundings and it is glowing in my direction...it is not, however radiating back into the hotter coals which it is in intimate contact with.

No need...have seen it and can explain it without having to violate the second law of thermodynamics..energy moving spontaneously from the cooler iron to the warmer coals is a violation of that law. I will keep watching for it to be rewritten in terms of net though...when it is, I will have to alter my position...if, there is ample empirical evidence to support the change...

it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object

Love your unique definition of spontaneous.

The second law is wrong?

Who said that? Link?

You questioned SSDD’s post so you implied he was wrong. If so, then you’re questioning the accuracy of the second law statement

You questioned SSDD’s post so you implied he was wrong.

Yes, his definition of spontaneous is wrong.

How?

 

[jc456]

Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold

You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one! Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate? Each is its own gaseous item? The earth is ice cold compared to any star. Unless you got any material that shows observed radiation

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one

The Sun isn't close to being the hottest star.

Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate?

According to SSDD's misinterpretation, a 6000K star won't radiate toward an 8000K star.
Right?

Which star is hotter?

Lots of stars are hotter than the Sun.

Then naming one shouldn’t be hard

 

[jc456]

Did you read the link I posted? Cooler star? LOL our atmosphere is cold

You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one! Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate? Each is its own gaseous item? The earth is ice cold compared to any star. Unless you got any material that shows observed radiation

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one

The Sun isn't close to being the hottest star.

Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate?

According to SSDD's misinterpretation, a 6000K star won't radiate toward an 8000K star.
Right?

According to the second law yep. Again, all you have to do is show an observation of it occurring.

And there you go implying the second law wrong

According to the second law yep. Again, all you have to do is show an observation of it occurring.

The 2nd Law says a 6000K star doesn't radiate toward an 8000K star?

That's why we like mocking you, you say the dumbest things.

Then all you have to do is show an observation of 6000k radiating at an 8000k star violating the second law

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one! Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate? Each is its own gaseous item? The earth is ice cold compared to any star. Unless you got any material that shows observed radiation

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one

The Sun isn't close to being the hottest star.

Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate?

According to SSDD's misinterpretation, a 6000K star won't radiate toward an 8000K star.
Right?

Which star is hotter?

Lots of stars are hotter than the Sun.

Then naming one shouldn’t be hard

LMGTFY

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You seem to be denying that one star can be cooler than another. You're denying that a red dwarf star is cooler than a blue-violet supergiant. That would indicate you're an imbecile. Being that you've demonstrated you're an imbecile, why should anyone not laugh at you?

The point sailing way over your head is that you claim a cooler object can't radiate towards a warmer object. So, by your moron science, a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star.

Is that indeed the case? Do you say that a cooler star can't radiate towards a warmer star? Is your moron science consistent that way?

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one! Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate? Each is its own gaseous item? The earth is ice cold compared to any star. Unless you got any material that shows observed radiation

Not sure what you’re arguing, the sun is a star. The hottest one

The Sun isn't close to being the hottest star.

Space is ice cold why wouldn’t any star radiate?

According to SSDD's misinterpretation, a 6000K star won't radiate toward an 8000K star.
Right?

According to the second law yep. Again, all you have to do is show an observation of it occurring.

And there you go implying the second law wrong

According to the second law yep. Again, all you have to do is show an observation of it occurring.

The 2nd Law says a 6000K star doesn't radiate toward an 8000K star?

That's why we like mocking you, you say the dumbest things.

Then all you have to do is show an observation of 6000k radiating at an 8000k star violating the second law

A cooler star radiating at a hotter star doesn't violate the second law.

It's hilarious that you think it does.

Is it the smart photons?

 

[SSDD]

Yes...it has been "explained" in terms of statistics any number of times....and yet, it still says what it has always said....it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...When they rewrite the second law in terms of statistics, then I guess I will have to alter my position...till it is rewritten as such, however, it still says what it has always said.

The second law has been understood in terms of statistical mechanics in 1877.
The outcome is a proof of the law of entropy from very simple principles.
The Clausius and Carnot form of the second law can never be proven.

Planck's law also deals with a radiator radiating into a cooler background...no two way energy flow there either...

Planks law never considers any background at any temperature.
It applies no matter what the temperature is.

.

Talking to you is a useless exercise...you completely fail to understand even the basics...

Planck's law deals with theoretical black bodies...which are always assumed to be within perfect vacuums...If your understanding doesn't come from that basic fact, then everything after is nothing more than your nut job interpretation...and is meaningless...

 

[Wuwei]

Talking to you is a useless exercise...you completely fail to understand even the basics...

Planck's law deals with theoretical black bodies...which are always assumed to be within perfect vacuums...If your understanding doesn't come from that basic fact, then everything after is nothing more than your nut job interpretation...and is meaningless...

Planck's law applies to any surround. Who says it doesn't?

 

[Wuwei]

I am an empirical sort of guy...show me data from actual observations, and measurements...and demonstrate that you haven't simply been fooled by the instrumentation and then I can modify my position.

How would you demonstrate unequivocally that Clausius' version of the second law is correct?

 

[ReinyDays]

I also happen to be out here in the cooler surroundings and it is glowing in my direction

This may be the heart of our disagreement ... radiation is emitted radially ... in all directions ... that what we mean by a radiator, something that emits energy radially ...

So without that ... then ... you say it's impossible for the cold Earth to transfer energy to the warm atmospheric gases through IR radiation, thus the greenhouse effect is non-existent ... you'll need to be more clever on how you algebraically manipulate SB than what you've posted ... I showed you how easy it is to demonstrate the equation you give is for net power ... try setting T(c) to 3 K ... see if that makes a difference ...

I guess I'm just a pansy for the past century's finest minds ...

 

[Wuwei]

I guess I'm just a pansy for the past century's finest minds ...

Me too when it comes to thermodynamics.

SSDD believes that two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other.
He thinks that if the subtracted T^4 terms are the same temperature, then there is no radiation by either object. That violates quantum mechanics.

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

Einstein and many others say the same.

.

 

[ReinyDays]

My computer screen is colder than my eyeball ... it doesn't emit your post ... sorry, just a black screen here ...

 

[SSDD]

This may be the heart of our disagreement ... radiation is emitted radially ... in all directions ... that what we mean by a radiator, something that emits energy radially ...

That may be what you mean by a radiator...but that is not what we mean by radiator, nor is that how the word is defined...the science dictionary defines a radiator as a body that emits radiation...the radial emission part is an assumption.

Unfortunately assumption has become an accepted means of logic in physics...it is rampant and becoming more rampant all the time.

CAUTION: HERETICAL SPEECH AHEAD. THE NATURE OF THIS SPEECH WILL CHALLENGE THINKING MINDS BUT WILL ONLY OFFEND THOSE HOLDING QUASI RELIGIOUS FAITH IN THE OMNIPOTENCE OF SCIENCE..IF YOU FALL INTO THE SECOND CATEGORY, TURN BACK NOW FOR YOU WILL SURELY BE OFFENDED....AND POSSIBLY OUTRAGED.

Now that my due diligence has been done.

Assumption. It has become part and parcel of physics and has led to a necessity of circular reasoning in which assumptions are accepted and lauded as true facts.

For example:

Suppose we make the assumption that a proton is made of three quarks. We can then theoretically derive a formula for the observed mass of a proton...therefore, a proton is made up of three quarks. It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that light is made up of particles...lets call them photons. We can then theoretically derive a formula for photoelectricity which just happens to agree with certain observations that we have made...therefore light is made of photons. It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that space time is curved. We can then theoretically explain observations of gravitation. Therefore space time is curved....It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that there was a big bang. We can then theorize about the observed expansion of the universe. Therefore there was a big bang. It must be a true fact.

Suppose we make the assumption that there is a big old black hole at the center of a galaxy. Now we can theorize about the observation of the shape of a galaxy. Therefore there is a big old black hole at the center of a galaxy. It must be true fact.

Suppose we assume that the space time observations of different observers are connected by the Lorentz transformation of special relativity. Now we can theorize about the observation that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Therefore, all space time observations of different observers are connected by the Lorentz transformation.

Suppose we assume that the earth is sitting on the back of 4 invisible turtles. Now we can theorize about why the earth does not fall down even though everything else that is not supported falls down. Therefore, the earth sits on the backs of 4 big invisible turtles. It must be true fact.

A thinking person sees the possibility of flawed logic in those assumptions immediately. A thinking person sees that sort of thinking as pseudoscience...not actual science.

There is the fact that a particular phenomenon was observed...and the observation can be theoretically explained if certain assumptions are made. The fact that an observation was made is then used to support the claim that the assumption is not mere assumption, but true fact. Protons ARE made up of 3 quarks....light IS made up of photons.....space time IS curved...there WAS a big bang.....the Lorentz transformation MUST connect different observations....the earth IS sitting on the backs of 4 invisible turtles. CO2 IS a critical greenhouse gas....

In all of the examples above, it is not possible to directly check to see if the assumption is valid which is the pseudoscientific beauty of post modern physics...The assumption is exempt from direct experimentation and validation...it can only be tested indirectly. The assumption is correct because the theorized explanation of the observation supports the theorized cause for the observation...The assumption must be true because it is the only way the theoretical explanation seems to be possible...The inability to come up with a plausible alternative explanation is then presented as evidence ..and the more we restrict our creativity and perspective, the more sure we get that we are right...circular thinking at its best.

There are no direct observations and measurements of energy exchange between objects at equilibrium, nor are there observations and measurements of energy moving back and forth spontaneously between objects at different temperatures..

So without that ... then ... you say it's impossible for the cold Earth to transfer energy to the warm atmospheric gases through IR radiation...

Actually, I have never said that...I have said that the cold atmospheric gasses can not warm the warmer earth earth....except, of course in rare instances of temperature inversion where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface...

thus the greenhouse effect is non-existent ... you'll need to be more clever on how you algebraically manipulate SB than what you've posted ...

I have not manipulated anything...I only stated in plain english the energy exchange that the equation describes....You assume net, so you see net in an equation from which net can not be derived...therefore net must be a true fact...

And there can be no radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere which is so completely dominated by convection and conduction..rare indeed, is the greenhouse gas molecule that actually gets to emit radiation...

In the troposphere, the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited greenhouse molecule can trans for its energy to another gas molecule ) most often N2 is about a nanosecond. The mean decay time for an excited molecule in the atmosphere to emit that energy is about a second.

So when a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs some IR radiation, about 99.9999999% of the time, it will lose that energy via collision also known as conduction...

Therefore conduction and convection are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere..radiation is such a small player in the troposphere that it is hardly worth mentioning...and yet, we theorized about observations of energy in the atmosphere, and came up with one that seemingly explains the observations and therefore, by fiat, it must be true...even though observation with more and more sensitive instrumentation over the years have shown the original theorization to have been incorrect.

There is certainly a "greenhouse" effect if you like that term that keeps us warm at night, and from burning up in the day, but it is not radiative in nature.

I showed you how easy it is to demonstrate the equation you give is for net power ... try setting T(c) to 3 K ... see if that makes a difference ...

Actually, you theorized...you didn't show me anything..and you completely ignored the fact that you have your iron bar laying in the hot coals...and the underside of the bar, which is in contact with the coals is not radiating anything...AGAIN...the laws of physics state that there can be no radiation between objects that are in intimate contact...the underside of the bar is in intimate contact with the bed of coals...the iron bar is conducting energy through the side that is in intimate contact with the coals and radiating energy out into the cooler atmosphere precisely as both the second law and the SB law predict..

I guess I'm just a pansy for the past century's finest minds ...

I appreciate fine minds...but am acutely aware of the fact that even the finest minds can be wrong...and have been wrong throughout the evolution of science...there is no reason whatsoever to suspect that the minds of the present are the finest and that future fine minds won't find our notions on physics as quaint as we find the thinking of the finest minds of the past. It is arrogant in the extreme to believe that we have learned it all and are mistaken about nothing.....especially when physical evidence is lacking to support most of the true facts we accept today...as has always been the case, improvements in instrumentation, and the ability to look more deeply that those improvements provide will inevitably show us that the finest minds of today were certainly creative, but alas, wrong in far more cases than they will have been right.

We are constrained by what we can imagine...and nature has shown us over and over that our imaginations are very dim bulbs indeed when contrasted with the realities of nature....

 

[SSDD]

I am an empirical sort of guy...show me data from actual observations, and measurements...and demonstrate that you haven't simply been fooled by the instrumentation and then I can modify my position.

How would you demonstrate unequivocally that Clausius' version of the second law is correct?

All versions of the second law express the same thing...the concept is just spoken differently...

 

[SSDD]

My computer screen is colder than my eyeball ... it doesn't emit your post ... sorry, just a black screen here ...

Are you under the impression that no work is being done to make your screen emit that light? Do you believe that your screen, whatever type it is a spontaneous process?

That's the problem with though experiments...they almost always contain some fatal flaw....which is why in this sort of discussion, thought experiments are the norm....since there are no actual observations and measurements of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...and what few instances of actual measurements there are, they are inevitably examples of being fooled by instrumentation..

By the way...if it is all cooler than your eyeball...why do you suppose there are so many heat sinks inside?

 

[SSDD]

Talking to you is a useless exercise...you completely fail to understand even the basics...

Planck's law deals with theoretical black bodies...which are always assumed to be within perfect vacuums...If your understanding doesn't come from that basic fact, then everything after is nothing more than your nut job interpretation...and is meaningless...

Planck's law applies to any surround. Who says it doesn't?

Planck's law itself...Ever look at the equation? Actually look at it. Note the "C" it denotes the speed of light in a vacuum.

All theoretical perfect black bodies are surrounded by theoretically perfect vacuums...the formulae change when matter is present..this is basic stuff and you don't get it...as a result, everything that comes after your failure to grasp the basics is flawed...

 

[SSDD]

I guess I'm just a pansy for the past century's finest minds ...

Me too when it comes to thermodynamics.

SSDD believes that two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other.
He thinks that if the subtracted T^4 terms are the same temperature, then there is no radiation by either object. That violates quantum mechanics.

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

Einstein and many others say the same.

.

Great...lets see the measurements....

 

[ReinyDays]

Are you under the impression that no work is being done to make your screen emit that light?

Here's the fatal flaw in your reasoning ... even if we allow your unique brand of physics, the greenhouse effect is still valid ... yes, my screen is drawing 10 to 20 W ... the work done is to increase the temperature of a specific point on my screen such that it will emit energy to my eye ... but leaving other points too cool to emit ... the same is true on the Earth's surface, there's a point hotter than the carbon dioxide and a photon zooms over ... then there's also a point on the Earth's surface that is cooler than carbon dioxide and again a photon zooms over back to the Earth ... ergo, the greenhouse effect ... in both steps, energy moves from hot to cold ...

I don't know if you're aware of this, but that's not SB's blackbody equation you posted above ... I see it superficially appears to be, but it most certainly is not ... now generally I'm willing to step past an obvious error ... except now you're claiming the c in Planck's Law is the speed of light in a vacuum ... nothing could be further from the truth, even with your unique brand of physics ... it's like you've learned a few trivia facts and are trying to string these together in some manner of scientific theory, without understanding all the matters between ... just like the climate change Alarmists ... and just like Alarmists, you stubbornly hold onto your half truths without understanding what these half truths mean ...

Take some time and try to learn "lamestream physics" before you criticize it ... and take a class in chemistry, not only will this give you a better understanding of the practical aspects of thermodynamics, but it's about the only place you'll get information on the physics of solutions ... I'll leave it to your imagination why that's important to SB ...

 

[SSDD]

Here's the fatal flaw in your reasoning ... even if we allow your unique brand of physics, the greenhouse effect is still valid ...

The greenhouse effect as described by climate science valid if, and only if radiation is the primary mode of energy transport through the troposphere...it isn't. Energy movement through the troposphere is completely dominated by convection and conduction.

but leaving other points too cool to emit ... the same is true on the Earth's surface, there's a point hotter than the carbon dioxide and a photon zooms over ... then there's also a point on the Earth's surface that is cooler than carbon dioxide and again a photon zooms over back to the Earth ... ergo, the greenhouse effect ... in both steps, energy moves from hot to cold ...

As I already allowed...rare instances of temperature inversion where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface...not nearly enough radiation to drive anything like the radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but that's not SB's blackbody equation you posted above ... I see it superficially appears to be, but it most certainly is not ... now generally I'm willing to step past an obvious error ... except now you're claiming the c in Planck's Law is the speed of light in a vacuum ... nothing could be further from the truth, even with your unique brand of physics ... it's like you've learned a few trivia facts and are trying to string these together in some manner of scientific theory, without understanding all the matters between ... just like the climate change Alarmists ... and just like Alarmists, you stubbornly hold onto your half truths without understanding what these half truths mean ...

Yes...I am aware...and no, I am not mistaken.

This....

is the mathematical expression of the SB law. But this describes a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a vacuum.

This...

is the mathematical expression of the SB law for a radiating body other than a perfect black body but still radiating into a vacuum....


This....

is the mathematical expression of the SB law for a less than ideal radiator radiating into its cooler surroundings at temperature TC

None of those forms is an equation from which you can derive net....net is an artifact derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. Nothing more nothing less. Lets assume that energy moves freely between objects off different temperatures but the end result is precisely the same as if energy only moved from warm to cool. Now lets theorize explanation for how energy might freely move between warmer and cooler objects but give a result that is the same if energy only moved spontaneously in one direction as the second law predicts.. The theory matches the observation so it must be true fact...and never mind that the result is indistinguishable from what the second law predicts when it says that energy can't move spontaneously from cool too warm...or from a less organized state to a more organized state.

Take some time and try to learn "lamestream physics" before you criticize it ...

You mean take some time and develop fanatical and undying faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models...No thanks...I much more enjoy pointing out the warts on the emperor's hairy ass than I ever would oohing and aaahhhing over his beautiful new clothes.

and take a class in chemistry, not only will this give you a better understanding of the practical aspects of thermodynamics, but it's about the only place you'll get information on the physics of solutions ... I'll leave it to your imagination why that's important to SB ...

This may come as a surprise to you...but I am educated. Do you think it is just coincidence that I form my argument in a way that you are reduced to thought experiments and insults rather than slapping me down with observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...and make no mistake...they are beliefs...my position is one of belief as well...but it is supported by every observation and measurement ever made in so far as we are able to see into the mystery before the wall of the unknown blocks our view.... Like I said..at some point, we will be able to see a bit beyond the present location of said wall, and in all likelihood, neither of our beliefs will walk away unscathed...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you under the impression that no work is being done to make your screen emit that light?

Here's the fatal flaw in your reasoning ... even if we allow your unique brand of physics, the greenhouse effect is still valid ... yes, my screen is drawing 10 to 20 W ... the work done is to increase the temperature of a specific point on my screen such that it will emit energy to my eye ... but leaving other points too cool to emit ... the same is true on the Earth's surface, there's a point hotter than the carbon dioxide and a photon zooms over ... then there's also a point on the Earth's surface that is cooler than carbon dioxide and again a photon zooms over back to the Earth ... ergo, the greenhouse effect ... in both steps, energy moves from hot to cold ...

I don't know if you're aware of this, but that's not SB's blackbody equation you posted above ... I see it superficially appears to be, but it most certainly is not ... now generally I'm willing to step past an obvious error ... except now you're claiming the c in Planck's Law is the speed of light in a vacuum ... nothing could be further from the truth, even with your unique brand of physics ... it's like you've learned a few trivia facts and are trying to string these together in some manner of scientific theory, without understanding all the matters between ... just like the climate change Alarmists ... and just like Alarmists, you stubbornly hold onto your half truths without understanding what these half truths mean ...

Take some time and try to learn "lamestream physics" before you criticize it ... and take a class in chemistry, not only will this give you a better understanding of the practical aspects of thermodynamics, but it's about the only place you'll get information on the physics of solutions ... I'll leave it to your imagination why that's important to SB ...

You have to understand SSDD's unique "dimmer switch" theory of emissions.

Two identical objects, one at 400K one at 500K.
People who understand SB will see that the cooler radiates X units of power, the hotter 2.44X units of power.
In SSDD's world, the hotter object "knows" the temperature of the cooler non-emitter, magically, and
reduces it's radiating to 1.44X units of power.

This "smart emitter" magic can occur over billions of light years, not just between nearby objects.