Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[CrusaderFrank]

Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?

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.

In fact which part of that statement have I not accepted at face value...which part have I interpreted in any manner at all...much less misinterpreted?

Tod answered above. To paraphrase Tod, you believe there exist smart photons that can avoid directions where there are warmer objects.

The same way it takes a smart bowling ball not to float up into space when its released

 

[Wuwei]

So you finally admit that I am not interpreting anything.....and that you are interpreting.

I don't think there are smart photons...I think that when we finally reach a stage where we understand why energy can not move spontaneously from cold to warm, it won't be magic...and it won't be smart anything..it will be just one more thing we come to understand about why energy behaves as it is...That you guys believe that there must be some intelligence involved is a failure on your part...what you should grasp is that there is a great deal we have yet to learn and none of it will be due to magic or smart particles.

You are like the uneducated native who believes that anything he doesn't understand must be magic...or the educated stupid who believes that he and science already know all that there is to know.

The phrase "smart photon" is a succinct form for referring to the fact that the laws of physics are violated when you think vibrating atoms cannot radiate in the direction of a warmer body.

 

[Wuwei]

Quite to the contrary...observation and measured evidence has failed to detect spontaneous two way energy movement...the second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from a cool to a warm object...the second law says it, observation and measurement bear this out...it is you who "believes" something other than what the 2nd law, observation, and measurement say... I am not operating from a position of belief...I am working from a position of observed measured reality.

Your vision of "face value" of one law seems to take precedence over a severe violation of another more overarching law in atomic physics... despite the fact that net energy movement is consistent with the "face value" law of the SLoT.

You are not "working from a position of observed measured reality" when your type of reality violates solid observed, measured, tested physics.

 

[Wuwei]

The same way it takes a smart bowling ball not to float up into space when its released

Exactly. Both "smart photons" and a floating bowling ball both violate the laws of physics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The same way it takes a smart bowling ball not to float up into space when its released

Exactly. Both "smart photons" and a floating bowling ball both violate the laws of physics.

You missed the point. The bowling ball follows the laws of our limited physics in this space-time - it falls to the ground and doing so does not make it smart.

The photons act the same, they follow the laws of physics and do not go to warmer places. Following the laws our space time does not make them smart

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The part where you imagine it means radiation only flows one way.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that suggests spontaneous two way energy flow to you?

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

That is awesome!!!!

You must have hundreds, hell thousands of sources that agree with your claim that it means that
radiation only flows one way. Thousands that agree matter has a dimmer switch. Thousands that
agree matter at equilibrium ceases all emission of radiation.

So where are they? It's weird that you have no sources that agree with your unique, causality violating misinterpretation of the 2nd Law.

It's funny that whenever you do, finally, post a link to a source, or post a cut and paste of a source
that you feel backs up your position, it always, without fail, ends up contradicting your claims.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me which part of the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics I have misinterpreted?

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.

In fact which part of that statement have I not accepted at face value...which part have I interpreted in any manner at all...much less misinterpreted?

Tod answered above. To paraphrase Tod, you believe there exist smart photons that can avoid directions where there are warmer objects.

The same way it takes a smart bowling ball not to float up into space when its released

Can you help a fella out?

Explain how photons can escape the "cool" surface of the Sun when they're blocked by the hotter corona.
Because some people believe the 2nd Law means they're trapped.

Thanks!

 

[IanC]

So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth. So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply. Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun. The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions. I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space? It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right? As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

Might it be that the amount of interpretation going on is, in large part, the problem.

Second Law of Thermodynamics:
It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any workhaving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


I take that statement at face value..I do not interpret it...I do not attempt to add anything to it that is not there...and I do not take away from it anything that is there...face value. I credit the authors with enough intelligence to have said exactly what they meant to say without needing me, or anyone else to interpret what they said...and if new observations and measurements have been made that make prove the reality of spontaneous two way energy flow, I would suspect that the statement of the second law would be changed to reflect such evidence.

Historically, the second law was an empirical finding that was accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory. Statistical thermodynamics, classical or quantum, explains the microscopic origin of the law.

You take a 150 year old definition and misinterpret it to mean more than it says by selective definition of the terms.

Meanwhile you ignore the present definition that describes it in terms of entropy and gives the reason why it happens.

The macroscopic movement of heat was observed and accepted as axiomatic. As discoveries were made in the atomic scale world they also found out why it happens. SSDD apparently rejects their reasoning and says a new and different mechanism will be found in the future.

News flash! They aren't looking for a new explanation because the present one works just fine.

Macroscopic rules are explained by the statistics of large numbers, and are able to cope with the exceptions that crashed the classical physics explanation. Quantum theory was discovered because classical theory broke down in so many places.

Quantum theory answers every question that classical physics can, PLUS many more classical physics cannot.

 

[Wuwei]

I take that statement at face value..I do not interpret it...I do not attempt to add anything to it that is not there...and I do not take away from it anything that is there...face value.

You read laws of physics like a freshman English major would. "face value" of a law is never used by real scientists in dealing with laws of science. This is just another one of your let's-pretend games that an uneducated amateur would use.

 

[Wuwei]

As discoveries were made in the atomic scale world they also found out why it happens. SSDD apparently rejects their reasoning and says a new and different mechanism will be found in the future.

News flash! They aren't looking for a new explanation because the present one works just fine.... Quantum theory answers every question that classical physics can, PLUS many more classical physics cannot.

Excellent observation. It has a name – the Bohr Correspondence Principle.

One thing a student learns in a beginning QM course is the Correspondence Principle. This principle means that any new theory should reduce to an older well established theory as a limiting case.

For example quantum mechanics could be used to trace the path of a baseball, but the mass and distance are so large that the equations of QM reduce to Newtons laws as a very good approximation. “Very good approximation” means that the deviation of the Classical result from the QM result is unmeasurably small with any current instrument.

The Correspondence Principle means the new theory subsumes the older theory so that the older theory is a special case of the new theory.

If SSDD wants to focus on a new theory, that new theory will still have to subsume the current theory according to the Correspondence Principle, and so he is left with an empty argument.

 

[IanC]

Temperature is an intensive property that is calculated by the average kinetic speed of the molecules that make up the object. A very large number of molecules. There is a wide range of speeds from a minimum of zero to a maximum of perhaps six times the average, distributed in the usual fat tail normal curve.

Radiation is produced by moving electric charges 'against each other'. Fast moving molecule interactions produce higher energy lower wavelength radiation than slow moving ones. That is why a Blackbody radiates a full spectrum up to the maximum that can be produced by the maximum speed of the molecules.

An intensive property does not depend on size. Double the size of the object and it still radiates at j=sigmaT^^4.

Power is an extensive property that gives an actual absolute amount because you have to define the surface area that is radiating. Double the size of the radiating area and you double the power.

But wait, it is much more complex than that if you are calculating the power exchanged between two actual objects. Because intensity drops by the inverse square law you need make the necessary adjustments for both distance and shape.

SSDD thinks there is some unknown physical law that Trumps the laws of electrical charges. Plus he thinks that new, bizarre and undiscovered law only affects the specific angles that connect the line-of-sight view between the two objects, and somehow makes allowance for any change of direction that they might take.

The rest of the world just accepts that every object radiates fully in relation to its temperature, and the power exchanged is simply the net amount of radiation absorbed and emitted by both objects.


A simple landmark to illustrate the difference between the intensive radiation (j), and the extensive power (j x area)-

An object at temperature T will radiate at j. The power radiated will be j times surface area. Chop the object into pieces and the j will still be the same but the surface area will increase and so will the power.

 

[SSDD]

So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth. So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply. Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun. The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions. I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space? It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right? As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

Might it be that the amount of interpretation going on is, in large part, the problem.

Second Law of Thermodynamics:
It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any workhaving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


I take that statement at face value..I do not interpret it...I do not attempt to add anything to it that is not there...and I do not take away from it anything that is there...face value. I credit the authors with enough intelligence to have said exactly what they meant to say without needing me, or anyone else to interpret what they said...and if new observations and measurements have been made that make prove the reality of spontaneous two way energy flow, I would suspect that the statement of the second law would be changed to reflect such evidence.

Historically, the second law was an empirical finding that was accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory. Statistical thermodynamics, classical or quantum, explains the microscopic origin of the law.

You take a 150 year old definition and misinterpret it to mean more than it says by selective definition of the terms.

Meanwhile you ignore the present definition that describes it in terms of entropy and gives the reason why it happens.

The macroscopic movement of heat was observed and accepted as axiomatic. As discoveries were made in the atomic scale world they also found out why it happens. SSDD apparently rejects their reasoning and says a new and different mechanism will be found in the future.

News flash! They aren't looking for a new explanation because the present one works just fine.

Macroscopic rules are explained by the statistics of large numbers, and are able to cope with the exceptions that crashed the classical physics explanation. Quantum theory was discovered because classical theory broke down in so many places.

Quantum theory answers every question that classical physics can, PLUS many more classical physics cannot.

And talk and talk and talk and model and model and model...and still not the first piece of actual observed measured evidence to support your belief.

 

[MPS777]

So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth. So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply. Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun. The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions. I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space? It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right? As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

You haven't been around SSDD as much as the others on this board, so you may not realize that he pretends science is different than what it is so he can practice a sort of a "flat-earth" type of dialog. He has been backed into a corner on many of his pretended "beliefs". He believes that at thermal equilibrium two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other. In one single post he has referred in derogatory terms to those who believe in exchanged radiation in thermal equilibrium as:

"using shitty math"
"attempt to fool idiots"
"bullshit equation"
"piss poor mathematical skills"
"senseless rants"
"are a dupe"​

That rant would also defame, Albert Einstein, Wilhellm Wein Gustav Kirchhoff, Max Plank, Niels Bohr, who are all Nobel Prize winners. He is also defaming all scientists for the last 100 years or so.

He is full of bluff, bluster, and argumentum ad hominem. Don't expect much science dialog. But it is an interesting game watching him try to squirm out of real science with outlandish pretenses.

Yeah I’ve been trying to figure out if he genuinely believes his textbook is wrong, or if he’s just putting on a shtick. For example, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

One method could involve using photodiodes. Photodiodes can be crafted to respond to a specific infrared bandwidth. I think some material could be selected that emits that IR wavelength when it is cooler than the photodiode. It could be pre-determined what thermal radiation wavelength the material emits as it changes temperature over time. If a sensor was constructed using one of these custom photodiodes, aimed at the material, and detected the thermal radiation wavelength at the time the mathematical model predicted the material should emit it, this could provide some affirmative evidence.

Lol, I know a professor who’s received grant funding for a number of quirky experiments, I should recommend this one to him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth. So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply. Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun. The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions. I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space? It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right? As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

You haven't been around SSDD as much as the others on this board, so you may not realize that he pretends science is different than what it is so he can practice a sort of a "flat-earth" type of dialog. He has been backed into a corner on many of his pretended "beliefs". He believes that at thermal equilibrium two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other. In one single post he has referred in derogatory terms to those who believe in exchanged radiation in thermal equilibrium as:

"using shitty math"
"attempt to fool idiots"
"bullshit equation"
"piss poor mathematical skills"
"senseless rants"
"are a dupe"​

That rant would also defame, Albert Einstein, Wilhellm Wein Gustav Kirchhoff, Max Plank, Niels Bohr, who are all Nobel Prize winners. He is also defaming all scientists for the last 100 years or so.

He is full of bluff, bluster, and argumentum ad hominem. Don't expect much science dialog. But it is an interesting game watching him try to squirm out of real science with outlandish pretenses.

Yeah I’ve been trying to figure out if he genuinely believes his textbook is wrong, or if he’s just putting on a shtick. For example, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

One method could involve using photodiodes. Photodiodes can be crafted to respond to a specific infrared bandwidth. I think some material could be selected that emits that IR wavelength when it is cooler than the photodiode. It could be pre-determined what thermal radiation wavelength the material emits as it changes temperature over time. If a sensor was constructed using one of these custom photodiodes, aimed at the material, and detected the thermal radiation wavelength at the time the mathematical model predicted the material should emit it, this could provide some affirmative evidence.

Lol, I know a professor who’s received grant funding for a number of quirky experiments, I should recommend this one to him.

For example, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

He would say we were "fooled by instrumentation".

 

[jc456]

So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth. So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply. Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun. The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions. I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space? It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right? As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

You haven't been around SSDD as much as the others on this board, so you may not realize that he pretends science is different than what it is so he can practice a sort of a "flat-earth" type of dialog. He has been backed into a corner on many of his pretended "beliefs". He believes that at thermal equilibrium two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other. In one single post he has referred in derogatory terms to those who believe in exchanged radiation in thermal equilibrium as:

"using shitty math"
"attempt to fool idiots"
"bullshit equation"
"piss poor mathematical skills"
"senseless rants"
"are a dupe"​

That rant would also defame, Albert Einstein, Wilhellm Wein Gustav Kirchhoff, Max Plank, Niels Bohr, who are all Nobel Prize winners. He is also defaming all scientists for the last 100 years or so.

He is full of bluff, bluster, and argumentum ad hominem. Don't expect much science dialog. But it is an interesting game watching him try to squirm out of real science with outlandish pretenses.

Yeah I’ve been trying to figure out if he genuinely believes his textbook is wrong, or if he’s just putting on a shtick. For example, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

One method could involve using photodiodes. Photodiodes can be crafted to respond to a specific infrared bandwidth. I think some material could be selected that emits that IR wavelength when it is cooler than the photodiode. It could be pre-determined what thermal radiation wavelength the material emits as it changes temperature over time. If a sensor was constructed using one of these custom photodiodes, aimed at the material, and detected the thermal radiation wavelength at the time the mathematical model predicted the material should emit it, this could provide some affirmative evidence.

Lol, I know a professor who’s received grant funding for a number of quirky experiments, I should recommend this one to him.

, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

post one! let's see. I bet you won't because you can't.

 

[MPS777]

So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth. So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply. Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun. The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions. I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space? It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right? As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

You haven't been around SSDD as much as the others on this board, so you may not realize that he pretends science is different than what it is so he can practice a sort of a "flat-earth" type of dialog. He has been backed into a corner on many of his pretended "beliefs". He believes that at thermal equilibrium two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other. In one single post he has referred in derogatory terms to those who believe in exchanged radiation in thermal equilibrium as:

"using shitty math"
"attempt to fool idiots"
"bullshit equation"
"piss poor mathematical skills"
"senseless rants"
"are a dupe"​

That rant would also defame, Albert Einstein, Wilhellm Wein Gustav Kirchhoff, Max Plank, Niels Bohr, who are all Nobel Prize winners. He is also defaming all scientists for the last 100 years or so.

He is full of bluff, bluster, and argumentum ad hominem. Don't expect much science dialog. But it is an interesting game watching him try to squirm out of real science with outlandish pretenses.

Yeah I’ve been trying to figure out if he genuinely believes his textbook is wrong, or if he’s just putting on a shtick. For example, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

One method could involve using photodiodes. Photodiodes can be crafted to respond to a specific infrared bandwidth. I think some material could be selected that emits that IR wavelength when it is cooler than the photodiode. It could be pre-determined what thermal radiation wavelength the material emits as it changes temperature over time. If a sensor was constructed using one of these custom photodiodes, aimed at the material, and detected the thermal radiation wavelength at the time the mathematical model predicted the material should emit it, this could provide some affirmative evidence.

Lol, I know a professor who’s received grant funding for a number of quirky experiments, I should recommend this one to him.

, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

post one! let's see. I bet you won't because you can't.

The thing is, it’s really not worth my time. No scientist who’s anybody believes that thermal radiation from an object can’t hit an object that’s warmer than it. I’m sure if I trolled through the data on all the quantum well infrared photodetector technology out there, I could find something, but I’m not wasting my time for a couple of nobodies on an insignificant message board.

 

[IanC]

So I am actually trying to keep an open mind your axiom that an electromagnetic emission from a vibrating matter particle can’t hit another particle with higher kinetic energy. And from my interpretation, thermal radiation behaving like this could still contribute to decreasing the rate of global cooling, and here’s why:
Matter density exists on a continuum, perfect vacuums are rare on and surrounding earth. So from the surface of earth on up to extremely high altitudes, the thermal radiation rules for “in the presence of other matter” should apply. Now we know the major input to the system is thermal radiation from the sun. The land surface of earth will absorb much of that, and also water molecules under many conditions. I think you’ve also said that CO2 will absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. Under the conditions I’ve outlined above, who’s to say it has to always re-emit it directly into space? It could just “target” a cooler CO2 or H2O molecule, right? As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

You haven't been around SSDD as much as the others on this board, so you may not realize that he pretends science is different than what it is so he can practice a sort of a "flat-earth" type of dialog. He has been backed into a corner on many of his pretended "beliefs". He believes that at thermal equilibrium two objects at the same temperature do not radiate anything toward each other. In one single post he has referred in derogatory terms to those who believe in exchanged radiation in thermal equilibrium as:

"using shitty math"
"attempt to fool idiots"
"bullshit equation"
"piss poor mathematical skills"
"senseless rants"
"are a dupe"​

That rant would also defame, Albert Einstein, Wilhellm Wein Gustav Kirchhoff, Max Plank, Niels Bohr, who are all Nobel Prize winners. He is also defaming all scientists for the last 100 years or so.

He is full of bluff, bluster, and argumentum ad hominem. Don't expect much science dialog. But it is an interesting game watching him try to squirm out of real science with outlandish pretenses.

Yeah I’ve been trying to figure out if he genuinely believes his textbook is wrong, or if he’s just putting on a shtick. For example, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

One method could involve using photodiodes. Photodiodes can be crafted to respond to a specific infrared bandwidth. I think some material could be selected that emits that IR wavelength when it is cooler than the photodiode. It could be pre-determined what thermal radiation wavelength the material emits as it changes temperature over time. If a sensor was constructed using one of these custom photodiodes, aimed at the material, and detected the thermal radiation wavelength at the time the mathematical model predicted the material should emit it, this could provide some affirmative evidence.

Lol, I know a professor who’s received grant funding for a number of quirky experiments, I should recommend this one to him.

For example, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

He would say we were "fooled by instrumentation".

Exactly.

It is somewhat ironic that the Stephan Boltzmann equations, including the one and only variant that SSDD believes in, were discovered using an experiment that cannot work by his interpretation of physics, and used crude detectors that he says 'fool' us.

 

[Wuwei]

One method could involve using photodiodes. Photodiodes can be crafted to respond to a specific infrared bandwidth. I think some material could be selected that emits that IR wavelength when it is cooler than the photodiode. It could be pre-determined what thermal radiation wavelength the material emits as it changes temperature over time. If a sensor was constructed using one of these custom photodiodes, aimed at the material, and detected the thermal radiation wavelength at the time the mathematical model predicted the material should emit it, this could provide some affirmative evidence.

Lol, I know a professor who’s received grant funding for a number of quirky experiments, I should recommend this one to him.

I don't think he would get any funding because the physics is so clear cut. It's sort of like asking for money to see if gravity is an attractive force.

 

[Wuwei]

, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

post one! let's see. I bet you won't because you can't.

Here is an experiment.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the heat coming from the most distant part of the universe. The temperature is a very cold 2.7 degrees above absolute zero.

That source of low temperature heat was detected on the surface of the earth which is a much warmer 300 degrees above absolute zero.

Yet the energy from that very cold source was able to hit the earth and be observed, measured, and detected.

That clearly demonstrates a warm object (earth) receiving thermal radiation from a much colder object (the far universe).

 

[IanC]

, if an experiment was specifically crafted to demonstrate a warm object receiving thermal radiation from a cooler object, and the results were affirmative, would he accept the results?

post one! let's see. I bet you won't because you can't.

Here is an experiment.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the heat coming from the most distant part of the universe. The temperature is a very cold 2.7 degrees above absolute zero.

That source of low temperature heat was detected on the surface of the earth which is a much warmer 300 degrees above absolute zero.

Yet the energy from that very cold source was able to hit the earth and be observed, measured, and detected.

That clearly demonstrates a warm object (earth) receiving thermal radiation from a much colder object (the far universe).

Personally, I don't like that example because the original radiation was much more energetic before it was redshifted down to its present levels.

I also don't like the example of the Sun's Corona. It only shows the symptom of high temperature, it is not caused by blackbody radiation. An LED is not as hot as it's radiation would suggest either.

Likewise the atmosphere is a very poor and fragmented Blackbody. Gravity plays a huge part in constraining the gas, and storing/releasing the energy. That side is seldom discussed.

Every time you narrow the field of investigation down to just one law of physics you run the risk that it is not the most important one.