Yes, 97%

[SSDD]

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

The fact that you have to ask says all that needs to be said....but to answer your question...mathematically, the application of properties is to reduce the complexity of an equation...ie to simplify...you don't apply a property to an equation that is already as simple as it can be made...it is just bad math.

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

No need for me to explain anything...the law is written as it is for a reason...when the law is changed and the equation is written another way...let me know.

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

So you are saying that specific mathematical equations in physics don't describe specific physical processes?

 

[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.

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.

Second law of thermodynamics...how much more of a reference do you need?

2 that say one way flow should be plenty.

Now, got any actual observation of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object?

All the time. Every day. It's because all things above 0K radiate, even if they're near warmer things.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

The fact that you have to ask says all that needs to be said....but to answer your question...mathematically, the application of properties is to reduce the complexity of an equation...ie to simplify...you don't apply a property to an equation that is already as simple as it can be made...it is just bad math.

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

No need for me to explain anything...the law is written as it is for a reason...when the law is changed and the equation is written another way...let me know.

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

So you are saying that specific mathematical equations in physics don't describe specific physical processes?

but to answer your question...mathematically, the application of properties is to reduce the complexity of an equation...ie to simplify...you don't apply a property to an equation that is already as simple as it can be made...it is just bad math.

Since it doesn't change the math, it makes no difference at all.

No need for me to explain anything.

Just your claims of one way flow and objects above 0K not radiating, despite the violation of SB.

 

[IanC]

There is no way you are going to get SSDD off his talking point. He will not explain anything because he knows it makes no sense and any details he would put down would just lead to logical fallicies.

 

[SSDD]

2 that say one way flow should be plenty.

I am rapidly beginning to think of you as just stupid.

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, one apparently closer to your grade level

Physics4Kids.com Thermodynamics Heat Second Law of Thermodynamics

Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Physics Video by Brightstorm

he Second Law of Thermodynamics can be rephrased in several ways. Fundamentally, it says that heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The application of the second law describes why heat is transferred from the hot object to the cool object. Let us assume that the heat is transferred from the hot object (object 1) at temperature T1 to the cold object (object 2) at temperature T2. The amount of heat transferred is Q and the final equilibrium temperature for both objects we will call Tf. The temperature of the hot object changes as the heat is transferred away from the object. The average temperature of the hot object during the process we will call Th and it would be the average of T1 and Tf.

Th = (T1 + Tf) / 2

Similarly, for the cold object, the final temperature is Tf and the average temperature during the process is Tc which is the average of Tf and T2.

Tc = (T2 + Tf) / 2

Th will always be greater than Tc, because T1 is greater than T2.

Th > Tc

Note the one way equations...

All the time. Every day. It's because all things above 0K radiate, even if they're near warmer things.

Which explains why after 22 pages of claiming that it happens all the time, you can't provide even one observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm one. I am growing tired of the conversation...we both know that you will never be able to provide an example because we both know that such spontaneous energy movement never has, and never will be observed. The second law makes the direction of energy movement clear...it says nothing about net movements or two way movements or any such thing...the second law speaks in absolute terms because absolutely every observation ever made is of energy moving in one direction.

So either provide the example...or admit that you can't...or I can see little use in continuing the conversation...when it started, I knew where it would end...page after page of me asking for an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cold to hot and you never being able to provide one...I would never have began the conversation if I were not 100% positive that you would never be able to provide such an example...So put up or shut up.

By the way, explaining how it is that energy doesn't move from cool to warm is not for me to do...I accept the fact...I don't have to know exactly how or why it happens...the fact that the most fundamental natural law says it is so and every observation ever made bears it out is good enough for me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2 that say one way flow should be plenty.

I am rapidly beginning to think of you as just stupid.

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, one apparently closer to your grade level

Physics4Kids.com Thermodynamics Heat Second Law of Thermodynamics

Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Physics Video by Brightstorm

he Second Law of Thermodynamics can be rephrased in several ways. Fundamentally, it says that heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The application of the second law describes why heat is transferred from the hot object to the cool object. Let us assume that the heat is transferred from the hot object (object 1) at temperature T1 to the cold object (object 2) at temperature T2. The amount of heat transferred is Q and the final equilibrium temperature for both objects we will call Tf. The temperature of the hot object changes as the heat is transferred away from the object. The average temperature of the hot object during the process we will call Th and it would be the average of T1 and Tf.

Th = (T1 + Tf) / 2

Similarly, for the cold object, the final temperature is Tf and the average temperature during the process is Tc which is the average of Tf and T2.

Tc = (T2 + Tf) / 2

Th will always be greater than Tc, because T1 is greater than T2.

Th > Tc

Note the one way equations...

All the time. Every day. It's because all things above 0K radiate, even if they're near warmer things.

Which explains why after 22 pages of claiming that it happens all the time, you can't provide even one observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm one. I am growing tired of the conversation...we both know that you will never be able to provide an example because we both know that such spontaneous energy movement never has, and never will be observed. The second law makes the direction of energy movement clear...it says nothing about net movements or two way movements or any such thing...the second law speaks in absolute terms because absolutely every observation ever made is of energy moving in one direction.

So either provide the example...or admit that you can't...or I can see little use in continuing the conversation...when it started, I knew where it would end...page after page of me asking for an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cold to hot and you never being able to provide one...I would never have began the conversation if I were not 100% positive that you would never be able to provide such an example...So put up or shut up.

By the way, explaining how it is that energy doesn't move from cool to warm is not for me to do...I accept the fact...I don't have to know exactly how or why it happens...the fact that the most fundamental natural law says it is so and every observation ever made bears it out is good enough for me.

Thanks for the links. I'm glad you were able to find links simplistic enough for you to understand.
Why do you only have links that discuss transfer of heat, not transfer of energy?

Which explains why after 22 pages of claiming that it happens all the time, you can't provide even one observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm one.

Which explains why after 22 pages , you can't provide even two sources which mention a one way flow of energy.

I'm curious, do you believe the "temperature of space" is about 2.72K?

 

[SSDD]

Which explains why after 22 pages , you can't provide even two sources which mention a one way flow of energy.

And now we reach the reason for the thread I started on heat vs energy....is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of the movement of energy?

I'm curious, do you believe the "temperature of space" is about 2.72K?

The vacuum of space has no temperature..

How Cold is Space

How cold is space?
Unlike your house, car, or swimming pool, the vacuum of space has no temperature.
So, how cold is space? That’s a nonsense question. It’s only when you put a thing in space, like a rock, or an astronaut, that you can measure temperature.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which explains why after 22 pages , you can't provide even two sources which mention a one way flow of energy.

And now we reach the reason for the thread I started on heat vs energy....is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of the movement of energy?

I'm curious, do you believe the "temperature of space" is about 2.72K?

The vacuum of space has no temperature..

How Cold is Space

How cold is space?
Unlike your house, car, or swimming pool, the vacuum of space has no temperature.
So, how cold is space? That’s a nonsense question. It’s only when you put a thing in space, like a rock, or an astronaut, that you can measure temperature.

So did you have any links that said one way flow of energy, or will you post more links that say heat?

I didn't say vacuum of space, I said space.

 

[SSDD]

Which explains why after 22 pages , you can't provide even two sources which mention a one way flow of energy.

And now we reach the reason for the thread I started on heat vs energy....is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of the movement of energy?

I'm curious, do you believe the "temperature of space" is about 2.72K?

The vacuum of space has no temperature..

How Cold is Space

How cold is space?
Unlike your house, car, or swimming pool, the vacuum of space has no temperature.
So, how cold is space? That’s a nonsense question. It’s only when you put a thing in space, like a rock, or an astronaut, that you can measure temperature.

So did you have any links that said one way flow of energy, or will you post more links that say heat?

I didn't say vacuum of space, I said space.

Space is the vacuum.....

...and since the second law doesn't say anything about two way flow...and it states that energy only flows one way....anyone capable of actually thinking should get it....clearly, your thinking skills aren't all you suppose they are......and before you start talking about heat, we have to determine whether heat is energy, or heat is the fingerprint of energy movement...which is it?

By the way, the first two links I provided clearly addressed heat and energy saying that neither moves spontaneously from cold to hot.

You wanted 2, I gave you 4 and still you are trying to split hairs..dishonest on top of everything else. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which explains why after 22 pages , you can't provide even two sources which mention a one way flow of energy.

And now we reach the reason for the thread I started on heat vs energy....is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of the movement of energy?

I'm curious, do you believe the "temperature of space" is about 2.72K?

The vacuum of space has no temperature..

How Cold is Space

How cold is space?
Unlike your house, car, or swimming pool, the vacuum of space has no temperature.
So, how cold is space? That’s a nonsense question. It’s only when you put a thing in space, like a rock, or an astronaut, that you can measure temperature.

So did you have any links that said one way flow of energy, or will you post more links that say heat?

I didn't say vacuum of space, I said space.

Space is the vacuum.....

...and since the second law doesn't say anything about two way flow...and it states that energy only flows one way....anyone capable of actually thinking should get it....clearly, your thinking skills aren't all you suppose they are......and before you start talking about heat, we have to determine whether heat is energy, or heat is the fingerprint of energy movement...which is it?

Space is the vacuum.....

Space isn't a vacuum. Are you disagreeing that the "temperature of space" is about 2.72K?

...and since the second law doesn't say anything about two way flow...and it states that energy only flows one way...

None of your links said energy only flows one way. Try again?

 

[IanC]

Planck curve for two temperatures, giving the range and amounts for each wavelength. the total amount is the sum under each curve as described by

it should be obvious that the lower temperature curve is totally enclosed by the higher temp curve, giving a one-to-one correspondence for all radiation produced by the lower temp curve. the remaining area in the higher temp curve is the power available to transfer energy from warm to cool. the total amount available to transfer is described by a secondary S-B law, which is only different from the first because it has two objects rather than just one, and the area to be examined.

SSDD states that the area under the curve for the lower temp object and a similar amount of the higher temp object, simply ceases to exist, for some unexplainable reason and by an unknown mechanism. everyone else believes that the radiation in the overlap between the two curves still exists but results in no net transfer of energy because the one-to-one transfer simply balances out.

SSDD also disputes whether photons exist as the carriers of this radiation energy. but IF they did then they would cancel each other out by some strange mechanism that doesnt involve matter. no such mechanism appears in physics literature, and would seem to be impossible according to what IS in physics literature.


the Stefan-Boltzmann laws, Wiens law, various other thermodynamics laws, entropy laws, etc were constructed as a best guess to describe what was happening in real world interactions. they are not perfect, and in fact they led to the development of quantum theory because Planck had to add a granularity constant to the universe get away from the 'ultraviolet catastrophy'. no real substance has a smooth and regular Planck curve, emissivity varies according to temperature as well as substrate, and there are a host of other problems as you examine anything at finer and finer detail.

if SSDD wants to believe that the general observations made by scientists 150 years ago are perfect and irrefutible that is his business. I am not willing to discard the last hundred years of prolific science expansion, due in most part to the understanding of quantum mechanics and quantum statistics.

 

[SSDD]

...and since the second law doesn't say anything about two way flow...and it states that energy only flows one way...

None of your links said energy only flows one way. Try again?

Try reading...

From the first link "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"

NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body....that is a definite statement of one way movement of energy....

Also from the first link... "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT....which part of tether of those statements leads you to believe that it is suggesting the possibility of two way energy flow?

From the second link:

"Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy."

HOT AREAS TO COLD,NOT THE OTHER WAY...which part of that leads you to think that it is not explicitly describing one way energy flow?

From the third link:

"heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction)."

UNLESS WORK IS EXERTED TO MAKE IT FLOW IN THE OTHER DIRECTION...which part of that statement leads you to believe that energy spontaneously moves in two directions...

My case is made...now how about a measured observation proving the second law wrong.

 

[SSDD]

Planck curve for two temperatures, giving the range and amounts for each wavelength. the total amount is the sum under each curve as described by

it should be obvious that the lower temperature curve is totally enclosed by the higher temp curve, giving a one-to-one correspondence for all radiation produced by the lower temp curve. the remaining area in the higher temp curve is the power available to transfer energy from warm to cool. the total amount available to transfer is described by a secondary S-B law, which is only different from the first because it has two objects rather than just one, and the area to be examined.

Again, you are describing a one way energy movement....not two way. The equations were written as they were for a reason. By the way, the SB equation is written by Stefan and Boltzman as follows:

But thanks for demonstrating that you are willing to alter the stated laws of physics in an effort to make a point.

 

[IanC]

Planck curve for two temperatures, giving the range and amounts for each wavelength. the total amount is the sum under each curve as described by

it should be obvious that the lower temperature curve is totally enclosed by the higher temp curve, giving a one-to-one correspondence for all radiation produced by the lower temp curve. the remaining area in the higher temp curve is the power available to transfer energy from warm to cool. the total amount available to transfer is described by a secondary S-B law, which is only different from the first because it has two objects rather than just one, and the area to be examined.

Again, you are describing a one way energy movement....not two way. The equations were written as they were for a reason. By the way, the SB equation is written by Stefan and Boltzman as follows:

But thanks for demonstrating that you are willing to alter the stated laws of physics in an effort to make a point.

nope. the S-B Law is

everything else is derived from this basic equation which illustrates the relationship to temperature (in kelvins) raised tot he fourth power.

 

[SSDD]

nope. the S-B Law is

everything else is derived from this basic equation which illustrates the relationship to temperature (in kelvins) raised tot he fourth power.

Radiating into a vacuum...and still one way. Net is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable product of post modern science..... which needs no actual evidence but believes in mathematical models as if they were the gospel.

 

[IanC]

...and since the second law doesn't say anything about two way flow...and it states that energy only flows one way...

None of your links said energy only flows one way. Try again?

Try reading...

From the first link "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"

NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body....that is a definite statement of one way movement of energy....

Also from the first link... "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT....which part of tether of those statements leads you to believe that it is suggesting the possibility of two way energy flow?

From the second link:

"Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy."

HOT AREAS TO COLD,NOT THE OTHER WAY...which part of that leads you to think that it is not explicitly describing one way energy flow?

From the third link:

"heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction)."

UNLESS WORK IS EXERTED TO MAKE IT FLOW IN THE OTHER DIRECTION...which part of that statement leads you to believe that energy spontaneously moves in two directions...

My case is made...now how about a measured observation proving the second law wrong.

no one is saying that Heat is flowing both ways. no one is saying that net energy is flowing from cool to warm. we are saying that everything radiates according to temperature, via photons. nothing can stop this basic function of matter, and once radiative photons are emitted they continue on their path until they interact with another bit of matter. got that? once created, a photon only interacts with matter. photons do not interact with other photons, there is no cancelling out of photons, there is no limit as to how many photons can exist in the same space. photons have different characteristics than matter, which is something that you dont seem to understand.

 

[SSDD]

no one is saying that Heat is flowing both ways. no one is saying that net energy is flowing from cool to warm. we are saying that everything radiates according to temperature, via photons. nothing can stop this basic function of matter, and once radiative photons are emitted they continue on their path until they interact with another bit of matter. got that? once created, a photon only interacts with matter. photons do not interact with other photons, there is no cancelling out of photons, there is no limit as to how many photons can exist in the same space. photons have different characteristics than matter, which is something that you dont seem to understand.

Is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another....energy moves in one direction...every observation ever made bears this out. You believe in a mathematical model more than you believe in every observation ever made.

 

[IanC]

no one is saying that Heat is flowing both ways. no one is saying that net energy is flowing from cool to warm. we are saying that everything radiates according to temperature, via photons. nothing can stop this basic function of matter, and once radiative photons are emitted they continue on their path until they interact with another bit of matter. got that? once created, a photon only interacts with matter. photons do not interact with other photons, there is no cancelling out of photons, there is no limit as to how many photons can exist in the same space. photons have different characteristics than matter, which is something that you dont seem to understand.

Is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another....energy moves in one direction...every observation ever made bears this out. You believe in a mathematical model more than you believe in every observation ever made.

you refuse to meaningfully discuss the relatively simple case of energy transfer by radiation. now you want to ramp up the complexity by several orders of magnitude by discussing ambiguously defined heat? not one in a hundred people can skillfully describe heat transfer and Im not one of them. if you refuse to believe in photons, which are observable, measurable and testable, then why are you bringing up fantastically complex world of quasiparticle heat movement?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...and since the second law doesn't say anything about two way flow...and it states that energy only flows one way...

None of your links said energy only flows one way. Try again?

Try reading...

From the first link "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"

NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body....that is a definite statement of one way movement of energy....

Also from the first link... "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT....which part of tether of those statements leads you to believe that it is suggesting the possibility of two way energy flow?

From the second link:

"Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy."

HOT AREAS TO COLD,NOT THE OTHER WAY...which part of that leads you to think that it is not explicitly describing one way energy flow?

From the third link:

"heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction)."

UNLESS WORK IS EXERTED TO MAKE IT FLOW IN THE OTHER DIRECTION...which part of that statement leads you to believe that energy spontaneously moves in two directions...

My case is made...now how about a measured observation proving the second law wrong.

NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body....that is a definite statement of one way movement of energy....

Show me your definition of heat and I'll show you your error.

My case is made...now how about a measured observation proving the second law wrong.

I've shown you observations that prove your misunderstanding of the second law to be wrong.

Still waiting for your two examples that back up your claim of one way flow of energy.

Are you still confused about the "temperature of space"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no one is saying that Heat is flowing both ways. no one is saying that net energy is flowing from cool to warm. we are saying that everything radiates according to temperature, via photons. nothing can stop this basic function of matter, and once radiative photons are emitted they continue on their path until they interact with another bit of matter. got that? once created, a photon only interacts with matter. photons do not interact with other photons, there is no cancelling out of photons, there is no limit as to how many photons can exist in the same space. photons have different characteristics than matter, which is something that you dont seem to understand.

Is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another....energy moves in one direction...every observation ever made bears this out. You believe in a mathematical model more than you believe in every observation ever made.

energy moves in one direction...every observation ever made bears this out.

However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Science Magazine awaits your explanation of their flawed math.