Yes, 97%

[IanC]

The universe essentially is playing a game of hot potato. Every particle is trtying to shed energy as fast as it can but neighbouring particles keep passing theirs along as well.

A simple illustrative example. Two men, one with $90 the other with $10, want to give their money away. Every minute they can pass 10% of their money to the other. After an hour of this they both have $50 but they are still passing $5 to each other every minute.

Even the SB power equation is a vast simplification because it is only dealing with one direction, between the two objects. Radiation is happening at all times and in all directions, continuously.

Always illustrations...and thought experiments...and this and that...but no actual measured observations of an object radiating out and absorbing energy from a cooler object at the same time....why don't you tell Toddster why he can't find any actual example....rather than let his claims that they exist pass?

And thanks for finally admitting that the SB equation is describing a one way energy flux..one must wonder why you didn't bother to mention it to Toddster for all these pages while he has continued to claim that the SB equation is describing a two way flux.

Hahahaha. Are you really that stupid that you thought I was talking about one way flow rather than a flow in one particular direction?

Objects radiate in all direction, 3 axis, 6 main directions. Two regularly shaped objects will have a shortest posible line segment between them that carries the highest amount of energy defines the average direction of flow.

Obviously irregularly shaped objects or unusual topography would affect the flow, but it would also invalidate the simple form of the SB equation.

 

[SSDD]

One way vs one direction? Talk about playing semantics....can you moon walk too?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, they used the SB correctly.
And still no link that says one-way flow.

Not my fault that you can't recognize even the basics.

Does that make you sad?
All alone in your claim. No link that agrees.

Not at all... only a real loser needs the validation of others....I am fine being right all by myself.

By the way, it is damned interesting that you agree with Ian above when he is stating that the SB equation is a description of a one way energy flow.

It's interesting that you still confuse net flow with one way flow.

Still no luck finding two links to back up your claim of one way flow?
What about two links that explain how an object above 0K can stop radiating?

I'm glad you're the type of loser who needs no validation.
You are right about one thing, you are all by yourself.

 

[IanC]

One way vs one direction? Talk about playing semantics....can you moon walk too?

That really is just too funny. The guy who disavows the mathematical distribuative law because it embarrasses SSDD's personal interpretation of the SB power equation is accusing me of playing semantics.

I suggest you reread flac' sig line about the liar's punishment.

 

[SSDD]

One way vs one direction? Talk about playing semantics....can you moon walk too?

That really is just too funny. The guy who disavows the mathematical distribuative law because it embarrasses SSDD's personal interpretation of the SB power equation is accusing me of playing semantics.

I suggest you reread flac' sig line about the liar's punishment.

You still haven't given a rational, mathematic or scientifically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation...

Got one?...and if you do, does it change what the original equation is describing?

 

[IanC]

One way vs one direction? Talk about playing semantics....can you moon walk too?

That really is just too funny. The guy who disavows the mathematical distribuative law because it embarrasses SSDD's personal interpretation of the SB power equation is accusing me of playing semantics.

I suggest you reread flac' sig line about the liar's punishment.

You still haven't given a rational, mathematic or scientifically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation...

Got one?...and if you do, does it change what the original equation is describing?

Actually I did respond to this exact same question the last time you posted it.

Mathematically speaking, the rearrangement of terms needs no explanation because it changes nothing.

Scientifically speaking it makes sense because there are two components, both of which are governed by the original SB law of 'radiation equals kT^4'.

Logically it makes sense to compartmentalize different aspects of a process so that you can see the relative influence each component makes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One way vs one direction? Talk about playing semantics....can you moon walk too?

That really is just too funny. The guy who disavows the mathematical distribuative law because it embarrasses SSDD's personal interpretation of the SB power equation is accusing me of playing semantics.

I suggest you reread flac' sig line about the liar's punishment.

You still haven't given a rational, mathematic or scientifically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation...

Got one?...and if you do, does it change what the original equation is describing?

Did you ever figure out how the hotter object "knows" how to reduce its radiation, based on the rising temperature of the cooler object, when the cooler object never signals its temperature by emitting?

For instance, two objects of identical size, composition and mass, just to try to simplify a bit,
one is 100K, the other 50K.
As the 100K object radiates (and the 50K object doesn't, LOL, I know), the hotter object drops to 90K.....80K etc, the rate of emitting must slow from ( 100^4 - 50^4) = 93,750,000 to (80^4 - 70^4) = 16,950,000, a drop of nearly 82%.
But the hot object doesn't "know" how much to slow down, because you claim the cooler doesn't emit.
Not a wave, not a photon.
Soon the rate drops to (76^4 - 74^4) = 3,375,600, a further drop of about 80%.
Later, the rate drops to (75.01^4 - 74.99^4) = 33,750, another 99% drop.
When they both reach 75K, how does the previosly warmer object know to stop emitting?
Why doesn't it emit one extra photon?

 

[SSDD]

One way vs one direction? Talk about playing semantics....can you moon walk too?

That really is just too funny. The guy who disavows the mathematical distribuative law because it embarrasses SSDD's personal interpretation of the SB power equation is accusing me of playing semantics.

I suggest you reread flac' sig line about the liar's punishment.

You still haven't given a rational, mathematic or scientifically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation...

Got one?...and if you do, does it change what the original equation is describing?

Actually I did respond to this exact same question the last time you posted it.

Mathematically speaking, the rearrangement of terms needs no explanation because it changes nothing.

Scientifically speaking it makes sense because there are two components, both of which are governed by the original SB law of 'radiation equals kT^4'.

Logically it makes sense to compartmentalize different aspects of a process so that you can see the relative influence each component makes.

Following your reasoning....why did ST not express the law like that? You think you have a better handle on algebra than them

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One way vs one direction? Talk about playing semantics....can you moon walk too?

That really is just too funny. The guy who disavows the mathematical distribuative law because it embarrasses SSDD's personal interpretation of the SB power equation is accusing me of playing semantics.

I suggest you reread flac' sig line about the liar's punishment.

You still haven't given a rational, mathematic or scientifically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation...

Got one?...and if you do, does it change what the original equation is describing?

Actually I did respond to this exact same question the last time you posted it.

Mathematically speaking, the rearrangement of terms needs no explanation because it changes nothing.

Scientifically speaking it makes sense because there are two components, both of which are governed by the original SB law of 'radiation equals kT^4'.

Logically it makes sense to compartmentalize different aspects of a process so that you can see the relative influence each component makes.

Following your reasoning....why did ST not express the law like that? You think you have a better handle on algebra than them

Following your reasoning....why did ST not express the law like that?

Exactly what difference would it make, scientifically, or mathematically, if they had?

You think you have a better handle on algebra than them

Better than you.

 

[mamooth]

Average surface area of an adult male human is 1.9 m^2.

Since some parts of your body radiate right back into the other parts, let's call the surface area radiating to the world at 1.5 m^2. The exact number you pick there isn't particularly important.

Surface body temp is 37C, or 310K.

IR radiated out of such a body is Area*sigma*T^4, where sigma is the S-B constant.

Running the numbers, it comes out around 800 watts. Over a day, that's 19 kw*hrs, or 17,000 Calories (big C).

Dang. I didn't think I ate that much. But since SSDD says I can not absorb any heat from the cooler surroundings, all that IR energy I'm emitting has to be entirely generated internally. All those sources saying I'm burning 2200 Calories a day clearly must be wrong. SSDD, groundbreaking theorist he is, has also disproved centuries of nutritional science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Average surface area of an adult male human is 1.9 m^2.

Since some parts of your body radiate right back into the other parts, let's call the surface area radiating to the world at 1.5 m^2. The exact number you pick there isn't particularly important.

Surface body temp is 37C, or 310K.

IR radiated out of such a body is Area*sigma*T^4, where sigma is the S-B constant.

Running the numbers, it comes out around 800 watts. Over a day, that's 19 kw*hrs, or 17,000 Calories (big C).

Dang. I didn't think I ate that much. But since SSDD says I can not absorb any heat from the cooler surroundings, all that IR energy I'm emitting has to be entirely generated internally. All those sources saying I'm burning 2200 calories a day clearly must be wrong. SSDD, groundbreaking theorist he is, has also disproved centuries of nutritional science.

Hehe. You'll make his little head pop.

 

[rdean]

Only 6% of scientists are Republican with good reason. The GOP used to champion science. Now they are very suspicious. Yet have nothing to counter it. Guess "I don't believe it" is good enough.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only 6% of scientists are Republican with good reason. The GOP used to champion science. Now they are very suspicious. Yet have nothing to counter it. Guess "I don't believe it" is good enough.

Listen to liberals when it comes to vaccines and GMOs and talk to me about science. LOL!

 

[flacaltenn]

That cameo appearance by RDean was dead funny.
Like the crazy guy who walks into a fancy restaurant
and starts to chat up the customers about giant grasshoppers.

Lost, lonely and clueless.. But is he harmless?
Got an idea --- Let RDEAN decide who's right here..

 

[SSDD]

It's interesting that you still confuse net flow with one way flow.

Alas, it is you who is confused...observation trumps theory every time and I can't help but notice that you have no observation of energy from cool objects being absorbed by warm objects.

 

[SSDD]

Actually I did respond to this exact same question the last time you posted it.

You gave a weasel answer that answered nothing...the fact that you can apply a property is not reason to apply a property. Why apply the distributive property to an equation that is already solved?

Mathematically speaking, the rearrangement of terms needs no explanation because it changes nothing.

But speaking in terms of physics, it does....the equation is a description of a physical process....

Scientifically speaking it makes sense because there are two components, both of which are governed by the original SB law of 'radiation equals kT^4'.

So now you are smarter than SB and are correcting their work for them?

Logically it makes sense to compartmentalize different aspects of a process so that you can see the relative influence each component makes.

Again, do you think you are more logical than SB were, and have a better handle on the math? They wrote the equation as they did for a reason...if they thought that it required an application of the distributive property, don't you think they would have done it?

 

[SSDD]

Exactly what difference would it make, scientifically, or mathematically, if they had?

From a strictly mathematical standpoint, applying an algebraic property to a solved equation is just stupid...from a physics standpoint...equations are describing physical process...if you change the equation, you change the process being described...or are you going to deny that in physics equations describe physical processes?

Better than you.

So why do I accept the law as it is written and you do not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's interesting that you still confuse net flow with one way flow.

Alas, it is you who is confused...observation trumps theory every time and I can't help but notice that you have no observation of energy from cool objects being absorbed by warm objects.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your failure to post 2 sources that say one-way flow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly what difference would it make, scientifically, or mathematically, if they had?

From a strictly mathematical standpoint, applying an algebraic property to a solved equation is just stupid...from a physics standpoint...equations are describing physical process...if you change the equation, you change the process being described...or are you going to deny that in physics equations describe physical processes?

Better than you.

So why do I accept the law as it is written and you do not?

From a strictly mathematical standpoint, applying an algebraic property to a solved equation is just stupid...

Stupid? It makes no difference mathematically. How can it be stupid?

...from a physics standpoint...equations are describing physical process...

We're still waiting for your explanation of the physical process that causes an object above 0K to suddenly stop radiating.

if you change the equation, you change the process being described..

And here's the source of your confusion, that didn't change the equation.

or are you going to deny that in physics equations describe physical processes?

I would never deny that the SB equation describes the process of all objects above 0K constantly radiating.

 

[SSDD]

It's interesting that you still confuse net flow with one way flow.

Alas, it is you who is confused...observation trumps theory every time and I can't help but notice that you have no observation of energy from cool objects being absorbed by warm objects.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your failure to post 2 sources that say one-way flow.

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.

Second law of thermodynamics...how much more of a reference do you need? Now, got any actual observation of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object?....of course you don't....but you go on believing if it floats your boat regardless of what every observation ever made says.