Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

The spherical cavity experiment is brilliantly conceived because it constrains outside influence. The cavity is bathed in radiation from a known temperature, and all angles are covered. No extra calculations are necessary. The radiation coming out of the aperture is a near perfect exemplar of the conditions inside, the radiation that is constantly being produced and absorbed by the blackbody.

You really believe that thermal equilibrium can be achieved in any structure that is larger than a couple of atoms? You really believe that you could achieve true thermal equilibrium across the surface of a sphere? You believe that the inside of an oven, no matter how well insulated is precisely uniform even when it is empty?...much less when you put an object inside? How exactly would you test to determine whether it is precisely uniform?

You live on assumptions ian...if the model says so, then you are willing to overlook any number of fatal flaws within the experiment you believe supports your assumptions and belief. Any temperature gradient...no matter how small would result in an energy transfer. Where in the actual real universe might you find anything in true thermal equilibrium?..and in turn, where might you actually find, or create conditions under which you might test your UNOBSERVABLE, UNMEASURABLE, UNOBSERVABLE mathematical model?

Of course SSDD thinks there is no radiation present until the aperture is opened.

And yet again, making up arguments for me and then railing against them. Do you have any idea how tedious that becomes. If there is radiation present within the sphere, it is due to the inevitable temperature gradients within the sphere. Only a top shelf, first order fool would believe that you could create a condition of true thermal equilibrium within any structure larger than a couple of atoms...much less by putting a sphere inside an oven. You really believe that every atom that comprises the interior surface of that sphere is in precise thermal equilibrium....you really believe that?

If you do, let me tell you about a toy factory located at the precise geographic north pole and a jolly little fat guy who has been running it for the past few hundred years. Belief in that story would require the same level of faith as belief in your story as both are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable.

 

[SSDD]

Radiation is the emission of electromagnetic (EM) energy, particularly infrared photons that carry heat energy. All matter emits and absorbs some EM radiation, the net amount of which determines whether this causes a loss or gain in heat.

Got any measurement of net energy exchange? Of course not.

Out here, in the real world, your own source said net.]/quote]

And my source doesn't have the first actual measurement of net energy exchange.

Maybe in your fantasy world, you have a couple of sources that say emissions equal zero.
Still waiting for you to provide them.

The physical law itself says so...have you seen anyone claiming that the physical law is invalid?...Has it been overturned...replaced by a physical law that states net energy exchange is real...has the term zero been replaced with a symbol that stands for net?

Is there even a mathematical symbol for net?.... the truth is that in both math and physics, you must assume net unless you perform a mathematical operation which explicitly expresses net....which isn't present in the SB equations. Net is an assumption. Tell me, where is "assumption's" rightful place in science?

 

[SSDD]

What do you believe?
Can work done thousands of miles away allow energy from the cool surface to be emitted toward the hotter corona?

Makes more sense than believing that energy is spontaneously flowing from a cool region to a much hotter region...any idea at all makes more sense than believing that one can use an ice cube to heat up anything other than a colder ice cube.

Makes more sense than believing that energy is spontaneously flowing from a cool region to a much hotter region.

Makes mores sense, but DO YOU BELIEVE?

Just say it. "Work done thousands of miles away some how makes its way to the surface, to allow non-spontaneous flow of energy from cool to hot"

I will wait for the evidence to come in...unlike you, I simply can't be satisfied with accepting a model that is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable as reality and running with it. People who do that are operating on something like religion which has its place in the world, but not as a substitute for science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Radiation is the emission of electromagnetic (EM) energy, particularly infrared photons that carry heat energy. All matter emits and absorbs some EM radiation, the net amount of which determines whether this causes a loss or gain in heat.

Got any measurement of net energy exchange? Of course not.

Out here, in the real world, your own source said net.]/quote]

And my source doesn't have the first actual measurement of net energy exchange.

Maybe in your fantasy world, you have a couple of sources that say emissions equal zero.
Still waiting for you to provide them.

The physical law itself says so...have you seen anyone claiming that the physical law is invalid?...Has it been overturned...replaced by a physical law that states net energy exchange is real...has the term zero been replaced with a symbol that stands for net?

Is there even a mathematical symbol for net?.... the truth is that in both math and physics, you must assume net unless you perform a mathematical operation which explicitly expresses net....which isn't present in the SB equations. Net is an assumption. Tell me, where is "assumption's" rightful place in science?

Got any measurement of net energy exchange? Of course not.

Only every measurement ever taken of any matter above 0K.
Any proof that matter at equilibrium ceases radiating? Of course not.

And my source doesn't have the first actual measurement of net energy exchange.​

Why do you use sources that agree with me and disagree with you? Weird.
​

The physical law itself says so​

Why are you using a model with no real world measurements?
​

Has it been overturned...replaced by a physical law that states net energy exchange is real..​

The law that says all matter above 0K radiates? No, that has not been overturned.
Except in your confused mind.
​

Net is an assumption. ​

An assumption that works so much better than your "smart photon, future predicting photon, no emissions at equilibrium, dimmer switch assumption". And my assumption doesn't violate causality.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What do you believe?
Can work done thousands of miles away allow energy from the cool surface to be emitted toward the hotter corona?

Makes more sense than believing that energy is spontaneously flowing from a cool region to a much hotter region...any idea at all makes more sense than believing that one can use an ice cube to heat up anything other than a colder ice cube.

Makes more sense than believing that energy is spontaneously flowing from a cool region to a much hotter region.

Makes mores sense, but DO YOU BELIEVE?

Just say it. "Work done thousands of miles away some how makes its way to the surface, to allow non-spontaneous flow of energy from cool to hot"

I will wait for the evidence to come in...unlike you, I simply can't be satisfied with accepting a model that is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable as reality and running with it. People who do that are operating on something like religion which has its place in the world, but not as a substitute for science.

I will wait for the evidence to come in..

Evidence that work at the core is transmitted to the surface? LOL!

I simply can't be satisfied with accepting a model that is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable as reality and running with it.

Why not? That's what your "no back radiation, smart photon theory" is.
You're the only one who believes in it.
On the other side you have every physicist in history who knew that matter emits and absorbs, at the same time.

 

[SSDD]

Only every measurement ever taken of any matter above 0K.

Sorry, but you don't...guess you are easily fooled by instrumentation

Any proof that matter at equilibrium ceases radiating? Of course not.

Where might you find matter of any size greater than a couple of atoms at perfect equilibrium? Any idea?

Why do you use sources that agree with me and disagree with you? Weird.

All I needed was a source that stated the law...the fact that they are guilty of interpreting it to say something that it doesn't isn't my problem.

Why are you using a model with no real world measurements?

Every real world measurement agrees with it..that is why it is called a physical law.

The law that says all matter above 0K radiates? No, that has not been overturned.
Except in your confused mind.

Stupidity on parade...that isn't what the law says...that is your misinterpretation of the law...the law actually states that matter above 0 K in the presence of other matter radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...perhaps if you could read a mathematical equation, you might stop making false claims.

​

 

[SSDD]

[
Why not? That's what your "no back radiation, smart photon theory" is.
You're the only one who believes in it.
On the other side you have every physicist in history who knew that matter emits and absorbs, at the same time.

Sorry, but I am not the only one...more lies on your part....and I have no theory...all I have is the statements of the laws of physics. Which law states that there is such a thing as back radiation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only every measurement ever taken of any matter above 0K.

Sorry, but you don't...guess you are easily fooled by instrumentation

Any proof that matter at equilibrium ceases radiating? Of course not.

Where might you find matter of any size greater than a couple of atoms at perfect equilibrium? Any idea?

Why do you use sources that agree with me and disagree with you? Weird.

All I needed was a source that stated the law...the fact that they are guilty of interpreting it to say something that it doesn't isn't my problem.

Why are you using a model with no real world measurements?

Every real world measurement agrees with it..that is why it is called a physical law.

The law that says all matter above 0K radiates? No, that has not been overturned.
Except in your confused mind.

Stupidity on parade...that isn't what the law says...that is your misinterpretation of the law...the law actually states that matter above 0 K in the presence of other matter radiates according to its emissivity, its area, and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...perhaps if you could read a mathematical equation, you might stop making false claims.

​

Where might you find matter of any size greater than a couple of atoms at perfect equilibrium? Any idea?

So when you said 2 objects at equilibrium cease radiating all together, you were talking about something that never actually occurs.

Your epicycles keep getting bigger and bigger.

All I needed was a source that stated the law

So you posted a source that stated the law and agreed with me.
Do you have any sources that state the law and agree with you?

Every real world measurement agrees with it..that is why it is called a physical law.

Baloney. You've posted no physical law or experimental result or instrument reading that shows energy flow is always one way. Or ever one way.

Stupidity on parade...that isn't what the law says...that is your misinterpretation of the law...the law actually states that matter above 0 K in the presence of other matter radiates according to its emissivity,

Post a couple sources that say matter reduces its radiating based on the temperature of other matter.
It's funny that you never have.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
Why not? That's what your "no back radiation, smart photon theory" is.
You're the only one who believes in it.
On the other side you have every physicist in history who knew that matter emits and absorbs, at the same time.

Sorry, but I am not the only one...more lies on your part....and I have no theory...all I have is the statements of the laws of physics. Which law states that there is such a thing as back radiation?

Sorry, but I am not the only one...

Great. Post a few that explicitly make any of the same claims you make.
There have been many examples posted of scientists saying objects at equilibrium
absorb and emit equal amounts of energy, none that say, as you have, that emissions cease.

Here's your chance. Post them now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What do you believe?
Can work done thousands of miles away allow energy from the cool surface to be emitted toward the hotter corona?

Makes more sense than believing that energy is spontaneously flowing from a cool region to a much hotter region...any idea at all makes more sense than believing that one can use an ice cube to heat up anything other than a colder ice cube.

Makes more sense than believing that energy is spontaneously flowing from a cool region to a much hotter region.

Makes mores sense, but DO YOU BELIEVE?

Just say it. "Work done thousands of miles away some how makes its way to the surface, to allow non-spontaneous flow of energy from cool to hot"

I will wait for the evidence to come in...unlike you, I simply can't be satisfied with accepting a model that is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable as reality and running with it. People who do that are operating on something like religion which has its place in the world, but not as a substitute for science.

I will wait for the evidence to come in..

Evidence that work at the core is transmitted to the surface? LOL!

 

[IanC]

You really believe that thermal equilibrium can be achieved in any structure that is larger than a couple of atoms? You really believe that you could achieve true thermal equilibrium across the surface of a sphere? You believe that the inside of an oven, no matter how well insulated is precisely uniform even when it is empty?...much less when you put an object inside? How exactly would you test to determine whether it is precisely uniform

Of course you can. It is easy to heat an object to a uniform temperature. The oven could be made to produce just about any precision or accuracy that you required.

Or are you arguing about a molecule by molecule uniformity? Temperature is defined by the average kinetic speed of a large cohort of molecules. Any individual molecule does not have a 'temperature'. Macroscopic qualities do not transfer to the atomic world.

 

[IanC]

It is interesting to ponder where the rules of the macroscopic world break down and the fuzzy world of QM takes over.

At some point in time I read about an estimate putting it at picograms for a one nanosecond period. The numbers don't really matter. Just the idea is amazing.

A picogram of molecules is still an amazingly large number.

 

[IanC]

Here is a comment from SSDD that he carelessly imbedded into Todd's quote-

"The physical law itself says so...have you seen anyone claiming that the physical law is invalid?...Has it been overturned...replaced by a physical law that states net energy exchange is real...has the term zero been replaced with a symbol that stands for net?

Is there even a mathematical symbol for net?.... the truth is that in both math and physics, you must assume net unless you perform a mathematical operation which explicitly expresses net....which isn't present in the SB equations. Net is an assumption. Tell me, where is "assumption's" rightful place in science?"

The first and most important S-B equation is j= aT^4 (a is the constant, not area. emissivity is equal to 1). Everything radiates according to temperature to the fourth power.

The equation SSDD likes to refer to is

P=eaA(T^4-Tc^4), where e is emissivity, a is the constant, and T is the temperature of the warm object and Tc the cool object. P stands for the power being transferred from one object to the other.

This second equation could just as easily be written P= eA{(j=aT^4)-(jc=aTc^4)}

The radiation from the first object minus the radiation from the second object leaves a net amount of energy available to change the temperature of the second object.

The reality of doing the calculations is much more complex of course.

 

[Wuwei]

My gosh. I haven't been on this thread since April, and it is still going around in circles. SSDD will never admit he believes in net energy flow because he is a troll. Logic doesn't dissuade trolls. I wonder if he's one of those Russian trolls.

 

[mamooth]

Don't feed the energy creature. It thrives on negative emotions. Instead, laugh it off of the Enterprise.

 

[SSDD]

Of course you can. It is easy to heat an object to a uniform temperature. The oven could be made to produce just about any precision or accuracy that you required.

Sorry ian, but for us humans, putting all the atoms of an object into perfect thermal equilibrium is impossible...we simply can't do it..and therefore, there is always going to be energy moving along those temperature gradients...so not only are you easily fooled by instrumentation, but experimental set ups as well

 

[SSDD]

The equation SSDD likes to refer to is

P=eaA(T^4-Tc^4), where e is emissivity, a is the constant, and T is the temperature of the warm object and Tc the cool object. P stands for the power being transferred from one object to the other.

Yes..I like to refer to the actual equations associated with the physical laws.

This second equation could just as easily be written P= eA{(j=aT^4)-(jc=aTc^4)}

You like to talk about people dodging pointed questions....here is a pointed one that I have been asking you for quite some time...perhaps as long as a couple of years. You just keep dodging...Under what circumstances would it be correct, or necessary to complicate an equation that has already been simplified? When might you do that if you weren't trying to demonstrate a physicality that simply is not real?

 

[SSDD]

My gosh. I haven't been on this thread since April, and it is still going around in circles. SSDD will never admit he believes in net energy flow because he is a troll. Logic doesn't dissuade trolls. I wonder if he's one of those Russian trolls.

Still waiting for one of you believers to provided an observed, measured example of net energy flow...then we can get the physical laws altered to state net energy flow rather than gross one way energy movement.

 

[IanC]

You really believe that thermal equilibrium can be achieved in any structure that is larger than a couple of atoms? You really believe that you could achieve true thermal equilibrium across the surface of a sphere? You believe that the inside of an oven, no matter how well insulated is precisely uniform even when it is empty?...much less when you put an object inside? How exactly would you test to determine whether it is precisely uniform

Of course you can. It is easy to heat an object to a uniform temperature. The oven could be made to produce just about any precision or accuracy that you required.

Or are you arguing about a molecule by molecule uniformity? Temperature is defined by the average kinetic speed of a large cohort of molecules. Any individual molecule does not have a 'temperature'. Macroscopic qualities do not transfer to the atomic world.

To which you replied-

Sorry ian, but for us humans, putting all the atoms of an object into perfect thermal equilibrium is impossible...we simply can't do it..and therefore, there is always going to be energy moving along those temperature gradients...so not only are you easily fooled by instrumentation, but experimental set ups as well

In the beginning you said temperature was the only deciding factor, so much so that the macroscopic quality of temperature in one object controlled the internal conditions of every molecule in the second object.

Now you are implying that the only internal conditions of molecules affects radiation emission/absorption, and therefore temperature of the objects is only of secondary importance. (I agree with this and have pointed it out to you in a variety of ways on numerous occasions)

So which is it?


Also, you have co-opted the term 'thermal equilibrium' to mean something other than its definition. Explain what you think it means.

 

[SSDD]

Also, you have co-opted the term 'thermal equilibrium' to mean something other than its definition. Explain what you think it means.

I believe the term means something other than its actual definition to you ian. Here, from various sources:

Scopeweb | Entropy and the Kitchen Sink

clip: This irreversible balancing of energy is being played out across stages all over the universe, and since the total amount of energy in the universe is constant, this means that nature is trying to get us into a state where no energy exchange can happen. Perfect equilibrium. A state where the potential for work has disappeared completely.


Smart Materials and Technologies in Architecture

Smart Materials and Technologies in Architecture: Michell Addington, Daniel Schodek; pp 95

When the energy state of a given material is equivalent to the energy state of its surrounding environment, then that material is said to be in equilibrium: no energy can be exchanged.


Heat conduction and Fourier's law by consecutive local mixing and thermalization. - PubMed - NCBI

clip: We explore the conditions under which relaxation to local equilibrium, which involves no energy exchange, takes place on time scales shorter than that of the binary collisions which induce local thermalization


http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4926325?crawler=true&journalCode=jcp

clip: We further show in this paper that the feedback term is essential for maintaining local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) when there is no energy exchange between the system of interest and its surrounding environment.


Refer to the SB equations...Set T1 and T2 to the same number...P=0 no energy exchange regardless of how much bad math you engage in to torture the equation in an attempt to satisfy your belief.