Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Toddsterpatriot]

already asked and answered.

Yes, you said that "there will be a change in the amperage through the sensor"

You never did say what the sensor sensed.

got anything else?

Besides your evasion? No.

You never did say what the sensor sensed.

Do you know what current flow is? . if you don't, then you won't understand how changes in current flows are sensed in circuits. The designers put in electronic components that are designed to react to voltage and current changes. you should read up on how Voltage, Resistance and Current /Amps work.

the one thing I can assure you of in the video, is that they are not detecting IR because if it were, then you'd see the girl's breath.

Do you know what current flow is? .

I do. Do you know what caused the current to flow?

the one thing I can assure you of in the video, is that they are not detecting IR

I wonder what they're detecting if not IR?

I do. Do you know what caused the current to flow?
Batteries. The voltage.

It flows for no reason? Doesn't something have to trigger the sensor?

It flows for no reason? Doesn't something have to trigger the sensor?

asked and answered.

The sensor is triggered by IR photons.

 

[jc456]

You never did say what the sensor sensed.

Do you know what current flow is? . if you don't, then you won't understand how changes in current flows are sensed in circuits. The designers put in electronic components that are designed to react to voltage and current changes. you should read up on how Voltage, Resistance and Current /Amps work.

the one thing I can assure you of in the video, is that they are not detecting IR because if it were, then you'd see the girl's breath.

Do you know what current flow is? .

I do. Do you know what caused the current to flow?

the one thing I can assure you of in the video, is that they are not detecting IR

I wonder what they're detecting if not IR?

I do. Do you know what caused the current to flow?
Batteries. The voltage.

It flows for no reason? Doesn't something have to trigger the sensor?

It flows for no reason? Doesn't something have to trigger the sensor?

asked and answered.

The sensor is triggered by IR photons.

Of course it won't...if the room is warmer than the ice cube then the ice cube is absorbing energy, not radiating out into warmer surroundings...You couldn't measure energy coming off that ice cube with even the most sensitive instrument because no energy is coming off the ice cube....

that's all one needs to know to show it isn't reading IR.

What is it reading if not IR?

Not IR, cause if it were, you'd see her breath.

So what is it reading? X-rays? Gamma rays? UV?
Why won't you answer my question? LOL!
Gotcha!

I'm sure there is an algorithm in the device to sense solid objects. As SSDD has already mentioned, the fact that it must target an object to read it, the loss of energy is monitored.

 

[Wuwei]

Yet another doofus being fooled by instrumentation. Here...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

Since you clearly don't know what that means let me tell you. It means that the camera is recording how much heat the sensor is losing to the ice cream...the sensor is cooling off because the heat flux is negative...that is the heat is leaving the sensor and going to the cooler object. The ice cream isn't radiating cold to a warmer object....the only thing an ice cube can radiate to is something colder than itself.

As to the 40 second mark where the ice cream is warmed up a bit...the color changes because since the ice cream has warmed up a bit, the sensor is losing a bit less heat to it...the electronics recognize this reduced heat loss and translate that into a warmer color gradation. It is no wonder that you believe the shit you believe....you don't have any idea what the instrumentation is doing, or what it is measuring...like ian, you look at the data and filter it through your magical beliefs and then talk about it as if you had a clue.

I agree with everything you said except for the statements where you think that I have been fooled, you think I clearly don't know what it means, you think I believe shit, have no idea, have magical beliefs, and don't have a clue. I would sincerely say that you are the one who has those attributes. You are quite caustic in all your replies. It doesn't serve you well.

The article in the handbook and your interpretation refers to heat flux, which is quite consistent with two way radiation flow. The flow of heat is not a confirmation of your lets-pretend game of one way radiation flow. That is why I agree with most of your post.

You still fail to understand that black body radiation that does not leave an object is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.

Your idea means that when the ice cream is moved around, various sensors are continually switching from emitting energy to not emitting at all. That is absurd. Either you are a doofus, or a troll or both.

 

[jc456]

Yet another doofus being fooled by instrumentation. Here...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

Since you clearly don't know what that means let me tell you. It means that the camera is recording how much heat the sensor is losing to the ice cream...the sensor is cooling off because the heat flux is negative...that is the heat is leaving the sensor and going to the cooler object. The ice cream isn't radiating cold to a warmer object....the only thing an ice cube can radiate to is something colder than itself.

As to the 40 second mark where the ice cream is warmed up a bit...the color changes because since the ice cream has warmed up a bit, the sensor is losing a bit less heat to it...the electronics recognize this reduced heat loss and translate that into a warmer color gradation. It is no wonder that you believe the shit you believe....you don't have any idea what the instrumentation is doing, or what it is measuring...like ian, you look at the data and filter it through your magical beliefs and then talk about it as if you had a clue.

I agree with everything you said except for the statements where you think that I have been fooled, you think I clearly don't know what it means, you think I believe shit, have no idea, have magical beliefs, and don't have a clue. I would sincerely say that you are the one who has those attributes. You are quite caustic in all your replies. It doesn't serve you well.

The article in the handbook and your interpretation refers to heat flux, which is quite consistent with two way radiation flow. The flow of heat is not a confirmation of your lets-pretend game of one way radiation flow. That is why I agree with most of your post.

You still fail to understand that black body radiation that does not leave an object is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.

Your idea means that when the ice cream is moved around, various sensors are continually switching from emitting energy to not emitting at all. That is absurd. Either you are a doofus, or a troll or both.

you think the device reads incoming IR. And it doesn't. That's what makes you a fool. The explanation was given and you don't accept the manufacturers explanation, instead you improvise with your words. the fact the girl's breath is not seen tells you that it isn't reading IR from anything.

 

[SSDD]

Photons moving from cooler matter to warmer matter is a fail? LOL!

As the text from The Handbook of Modern Sensors says...it isn't measuring photons moving from cool to warm...what is being measured is how much, and how fast the sensor is losing energy to the colder object...the image is the result of energy leaving the camera, not coming into it. Sorry this is all so far over your head. The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes why you only talk in one liners...if you were to speak more than a single sentence at once, your abject ignorance would flare forth like a spotlight.

As the text from The Handbook of Modern Sensors says...it isn't measuring photons moving from cool to warm.

On what page of the textbook does it say photons only flow one way?

Page 307, section 7.8.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?

No you moron....if the object is cooler than the sensor array, then what is being measured is how much, and how fast the array is losing energy to the cooler object...it isn't measuring incoming photons from a cooler object because there are none....tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

 

[SSDD]

.

What does it sense to trigger the change?

It senses a temperature change you idiot...either warmer or cooler and then converts the amount and rate of change across the array into an image...if the object is cooler then what is being measured is how much and how quickly the array is cooling...

 

[SSDD]

the one thing I can assure you of in the video, is that they are not detecting IR

I wonder what they're detecting if not IR?

This really is waaaaaayyyy over your head isn't it? If the object the array is being pointed at is cooler, then what is being measured is how much and how quickly the array is cooling off...that is..how much and how quickly the array is losing energy to the cooler object..it isn't measuring incoming photons...

 

[SSDD]

You still fail to understand that black body radiation that does not leave an object is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.

Only if the object is a perfect black body and in a perfect vacuum that is perfectly devoid of other matter....that is the only time matter radiates in all directions according to its temperature...put it in the presence of matter and the game changes.

 

[SSDD]

Yet another doofus being fooled by instrumentation. Here...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

Since you clearly don't know what that means let me tell you. It means that the camera is recording how much heat the sensor is losing to the ice cream...the sensor is cooling off because the heat flux is negative...that is the heat is leaving the sensor and going to the cooler object. The ice cream isn't radiating cold to a warmer object....the only thing an ice cube can radiate to is something colder than itself.

As to the 40 second mark where the ice cream is warmed up a bit...the color changes because since the ice cream has warmed up a bit, the sensor is losing a bit less heat to it...the electronics recognize this reduced heat loss and translate that into a warmer color gradation. It is no wonder that you believe the shit you believe....you don't have any idea what the instrumentation is doing, or what it is measuring...like ian, you look at the data and filter it through your magical beliefs and then talk about it as if you had a clue.

I agree with everything you said except for the statements where you think that I have been fooled, you think I clearly don't know what it means, you think I believe shit, have no idea, have magical beliefs, and don't have a clue. I would sincerely say that you are the one who has those attributes. You are quite caustic in all your replies. It doesn't serve you well.

The article in the handbook and your interpretation refers to heat flux, which is quite consistent with two way radiation flow. The flow of heat is not a confirmation of your lets-pretend game of one way radiation flow. That is why I agree with most of your post.

You still fail to understand that black body radiation that does not leave an object is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.

Your idea means that when the ice cream is moved around, various sensors are continually switching from emitting energy to not emitting at all. That is absurd. Either you are a doofus, or a troll or both.

you think the device reads incoming IR. And it doesn't. That's what makes you a fool. The explanation was given and you don't accept the manufacturers explanation, instead you improvise with your words. the fact the girl's breath is not seen tells you that it isn't reading IR from anything.

They are easily fooled by instrumentation...they see instrument readings and simply imagine what it must be reading rather than finding out what it is actually reading...hell, ian once claimed that a pyrogeometer was capable of measuring backradiation...imagine, an instrument to measure what does not exist...laughable.

 

[jc456]

Yet another doofus being fooled by instrumentation. Here...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

Since you clearly don't know what that means let me tell you. It means that the camera is recording how much heat the sensor is losing to the ice cream...the sensor is cooling off because the heat flux is negative...that is the heat is leaving the sensor and going to the cooler object. The ice cream isn't radiating cold to a warmer object....the only thing an ice cube can radiate to is something colder than itself.

As to the 40 second mark where the ice cream is warmed up a bit...the color changes because since the ice cream has warmed up a bit, the sensor is losing a bit less heat to it...the electronics recognize this reduced heat loss and translate that into a warmer color gradation. It is no wonder that you believe the shit you believe....you don't have any idea what the instrumentation is doing, or what it is measuring...like ian, you look at the data and filter it through your magical beliefs and then talk about it as if you had a clue.

I agree with everything you said except for the statements where you think that I have been fooled, you think I clearly don't know what it means, you think I believe shit, have no idea, have magical beliefs, and don't have a clue. I would sincerely say that you are the one who has those attributes. You are quite caustic in all your replies. It doesn't serve you well.

The article in the handbook and your interpretation refers to heat flux, which is quite consistent with two way radiation flow. The flow of heat is not a confirmation of your lets-pretend game of one way radiation flow. That is why I agree with most of your post.

You still fail to understand that black body radiation that does not leave an object is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.

Your idea means that when the ice cream is moved around, various sensors are continually switching from emitting energy to not emitting at all. That is absurd. Either you are a doofus, or a troll or both.

you think the device reads incoming IR. And it doesn't. That's what makes you a fool. The explanation was given and you don't accept the manufacturers explanation, instead you improvise with your words. the fact the girl's breath is not seen tells you that it isn't reading IR from anything.

They are easily fooled by instrumentation...they see instrument readings and simply imagine what it must be reading rather than finding out what it is actually reading...hell, ian once claimed that a pyrogeometer was capable of measuring backradiation...imagine, an instrument to measure what does not exist...laughable.

yep. the function is so simple to see as well. maybe they don't know electronics and how it works. all the innovations in components.

 

[SSDD]

Yet another doofus being fooled by instrumentation. Here...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

Since you clearly don't know what that means let me tell you. It means that the camera is recording how much heat the sensor is losing to the ice cream...the sensor is cooling off because the heat flux is negative...that is the heat is leaving the sensor and going to the cooler object. The ice cream isn't radiating cold to a warmer object....the only thing an ice cube can radiate to is something colder than itself.

As to the 40 second mark where the ice cream is warmed up a bit...the color changes because since the ice cream has warmed up a bit, the sensor is losing a bit less heat to it...the electronics recognize this reduced heat loss and translate that into a warmer color gradation. It is no wonder that you believe the shit you believe....you don't have any idea what the instrumentation is doing, or what it is measuring...like ian, you look at the data and filter it through your magical beliefs and then talk about it as if you had a clue.

I agree with everything you said except for the statements where you think that I have been fooled, you think I clearly don't know what it means, you think I believe shit, have no idea, have magical beliefs, and don't have a clue. I would sincerely say that you are the one who has those attributes. You are quite caustic in all your replies. It doesn't serve you well.

The article in the handbook and your interpretation refers to heat flux, which is quite consistent with two way radiation flow. The flow of heat is not a confirmation of your lets-pretend game of one way radiation flow. That is why I agree with most of your post.

You still fail to understand that black body radiation that does not leave an object is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.

Your idea means that when the ice cream is moved around, various sensors are continually switching from emitting energy to not emitting at all. That is absurd. Either you are a doofus, or a troll or both.

you think the device reads incoming IR. And it doesn't. That's what makes you a fool. The explanation was given and you don't accept the manufacturers explanation, instead you improvise with your words. the fact the girl's breath is not seen tells you that it isn't reading IR from anything.

They are easily fooled by instrumentation...they see instrument readings and simply imagine what it must be reading rather than finding out what it is actually reading...hell, ian once claimed that a pyrogeometer was capable of measuring backradiation...imagine, an instrument to measure what does not exist...laughable.

yep. the function is so simple to see as well. maybe they don't know electronics and how it works. all the innovations in components.

They think the thing is measuring photons...it isn't....all the instrument is measuring is the amount, and rate of temperature change of the individual "pixels" in the array. It is no more detecting and measuring photons than a pyrogeometer which measures nothing more than temperature changes within an internal thermopile. The more I talk to these guys, the more apparent it becomes that they are clueless...

These are high tech devices, but the principles they operate on are fairly straight forward...the amount and rate of temperature change a single "pixel" in the array experiences translates into a dot of color in a larger image..there is no "measuring" or "detecting" of photons going on..there is only measurement of temperature changes within the array.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

They're YOUR graphics. YOU identify them. No one here wants to play your infantile games.

Not my graphics...graphics from the atmospheric sciences departments of various universities....if you are afraid to identify them as depictions of the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect, I understand...not much actual science there anyway...I can see how you would be fearful of engaging in any discussion based on them...pseudoscience is hardly a basis for any actual conversation...

Shell Suppressed the Dangers of Fossil Fuel Emissions for Decades: Report
Jessica Corbett / Common Dreams

 

[jc456]

Yet another doofus being fooled by instrumentation. Here...from The Handbook of Modern Sensors: Physics, Designs, and Applications:

If the object is warmer than the sensor, the flux (phi), is positive. If the object is cooler, the flux becomes negative, meaning it changes its direction: the heat goes from the sensor to the object. This may happen when a person walks into a warm room from the cold outside. Surface of her clothing will be cooler than the sensor and thus the flux becomes negative. In the following discussion, we will consider that the object is warmer than the sensor and the flux is positive

The passage above is on page 307, section 7.8...the page is visible through google books

Since you clearly don't know what that means let me tell you. It means that the camera is recording how much heat the sensor is losing to the ice cream...the sensor is cooling off because the heat flux is negative...that is the heat is leaving the sensor and going to the cooler object. The ice cream isn't radiating cold to a warmer object....the only thing an ice cube can radiate to is something colder than itself.

As to the 40 second mark where the ice cream is warmed up a bit...the color changes because since the ice cream has warmed up a bit, the sensor is losing a bit less heat to it...the electronics recognize this reduced heat loss and translate that into a warmer color gradation. It is no wonder that you believe the shit you believe....you don't have any idea what the instrumentation is doing, or what it is measuring...like ian, you look at the data and filter it through your magical beliefs and then talk about it as if you had a clue.

I agree with everything you said except for the statements where you think that I have been fooled, you think I clearly don't know what it means, you think I believe shit, have no idea, have magical beliefs, and don't have a clue. I would sincerely say that you are the one who has those attributes. You are quite caustic in all your replies. It doesn't serve you well.

The article in the handbook and your interpretation refers to heat flux, which is quite consistent with two way radiation flow. The flow of heat is not a confirmation of your lets-pretend game of one way radiation flow. That is why I agree with most of your post.

You still fail to understand that black body radiation that does not leave an object is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.

Your idea means that when the ice cream is moved around, various sensors are continually switching from emitting energy to not emitting at all. That is absurd. Either you are a doofus, or a troll or both.

you think the device reads incoming IR. And it doesn't. That's what makes you a fool. The explanation was given and you don't accept the manufacturers explanation, instead you improvise with your words. the fact the girl's breath is not seen tells you that it isn't reading IR from anything.

They are easily fooled by instrumentation...they see instrument readings and simply imagine what it must be reading rather than finding out what it is actually reading...hell, ian once claimed that a pyrogeometer was capable of measuring backradiation...imagine, an instrument to measure what does not exist...laughable.

yep. the function is so simple to see as well. maybe they don't know electronics and how it works. all the innovations in components.

They think the thing is measuring photons...it isn't....all the instrument is measuring is the amount, and rate of temperature change of the individual "pixels" in the array. It is no more detecting and measuring photons than a pyrogeometer which measures nothing more than temperature changes within an internal thermopile. The more I talk to these guys, the more apparent it becomes that they are clueless...

Yes sirreee.

 

[SSDD]

They're YOUR graphics. YOU identify them. No one here wants to play your infantile games.

Not my graphics...graphics from the atmospheric sciences departments of various universities....if you are afraid to identify them as depictions of the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect, I understand...not much actual science there anyway...I can see how you would be fearful of engaging in any discussion based on them...pseudoscience is hardly a basis for any actual conversation...

Shell Suppressed the Dangers of Fossil Fuel Emissions for Decades: Report
Jessica Corbett / Common Dreams

What dangers would those be? Can you provide a single piece of observed measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? Just one?

 

[Mousterian]

These fossil-fuel vandals spin the most laughable shit.
BP claims oil-spills are good for you..
BP: Bight oil spills would benefit local economy
Oil company claims oil spills can have 'positive effects'

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Photons moving from cooler matter to warmer matter is a fail? LOL!

As the text from The Handbook of Modern Sensors says...it isn't measuring photons moving from cool to warm...what is being measured is how much, and how fast the sensor is losing energy to the colder object...the image is the result of energy leaving the camera, not coming into it. Sorry this is all so far over your head. The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes why you only talk in one liners...if you were to speak more than a single sentence at once, your abject ignorance would flare forth like a spotlight.

As the text from The Handbook of Modern Sensors says...it isn't measuring photons moving from cool to warm.

On what page of the textbook does it say photons only flow one way?

Page 307, section 7.8.

Copy and paste the part that says photons only flow one way. Thanks!!!

 

[SSDD]

Photons moving from cooler matter to warmer matter is a fail? LOL!

As the text from The Handbook of Modern Sensors says...it isn't measuring photons moving from cool to warm...what is being measured is how much, and how fast the sensor is losing energy to the colder object...the image is the result of energy leaving the camera, not coming into it. Sorry this is all so far over your head. The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes why you only talk in one liners...if you were to speak more than a single sentence at once, your abject ignorance would flare forth like a spotlight.

As the text from The Handbook of Modern Sensors says...it isn't measuring photons moving from cool to warm.

On what page of the textbook does it say photons only flow one way?

Page 307, section 7.8.

Copy and paste the part that says photons only flow one way. Thanks!!!

Already did....go back and find it yourself....not that you will be able to understand what it says...no doubt you will filter it through your magical belief and it will come out saying whatever you want it to say. For that matter, why bother looking for the post anyway...just make make up a one liner...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.

What does it sense to trigger the change?

It senses a temperature change you idiot...either warmer or cooler and then converts the amount and rate of change across the array into an image...if the object is cooler then what is being measured is how much and how quickly the array is cooling...

It senses a temperature change

How?

Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?

No you moron....if the object is cooler than the sensor array, then what is being measured is how much, and how fast the array is losing energy to the cooler object...it isn't measuring incoming photons from a cooler object because there are none....tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy.

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

Look what I found on page 3.

That's so weird, because I've always said that the warmer emitter can't tell the temperature of the cooler target in order to adjust the "dimmer switch" if the cooler target never emits.

This neat book, not sure if it's the same one you supposedly took your passage from, says there is always a transmission of energy.

And on page 106.......

106 3 Physical Principles of Sensing

Fig. 3.43. Thermal radiation exchange between an object and a thermal radiation sensor.
from the sensor toward the object must also be taken into account. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself). The surface of the sensor which faces the object has emissivity εs (and, subsequently, reflectivity ρs =1−εs). Because the sensor is only partly absorptive, not the entire flux, .b0, is absorbed and utilized. A part of it, .ba, is absorbed by the sensor and another part, .br, is reflected (Fig. 3.43) back toward to object.20 The reflected flux is proportional to the sensor’s coefficient of reflectivity:

It's weird, the nice diagram shows energy going both ways.......not one way

tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Positive means the net flux flows toward the sensor, in other words, the target is hotter.
That means the sensor receives more energy from the target than it sends toward the target.
Negative means the net flux flows toward the target, in other words, the target is cooler.
That means the sensor sends more energy to the target than it receives from the target

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

 

[MPS777]

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy.

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

Look what I found on page 3.

That's so weird, because I've always said that the warmer emitter can't tell the temperature of the cooler target in order to adjust the "dimmer switch" if the cooler target never emits.

This neat book, not sure if it's the same one you supposedly took your passage from, says there is always a transmission of energy.

And on page 106.......

106 3 Physical Principles of Sensing

Fig. 3.43. Thermal radiation exchange between an object and a thermal radiation sensor.
from the sensor toward the object must also be taken into account. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself). The surface of the sensor which faces the object has emissivity εs (and, subsequently, reflectivity ρs =1−εs). Because the sensor is only partly absorptive, not the entire flux, .b0, is absorbed and utilized. A part of it, .ba, is absorbed by the sensor and another part, .br, is reflected (Fig. 3.43) back toward to object.20 The reflected flux is proportional to the sensor’s coefficient of reflectivity:

It's weird, the nice diagram shows energy going both ways.......not one way

tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Positive means the net flux flows toward the sensor, in other words, the target is hotter.
That means the sensor receives more energy from the target than it sends toward the target.
Negative means the net flux flows toward the target, in other words, the target is cooler.
That means the sensor sends more energy to the target than it receives from the target

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

Here’s another interesting passage from page 103:

"3.12.3 Thermal Radiation
It was mentioned earlier that in any object, every atom and every molecule vibrate. The average kinetic energy of vibrating particles is represented by the absolute temperature. According to laws of electrodynamics, a moving electric charge is associated with a variable electric field that produces an alternating magnetic field. In turn, when the magnetic field changes, it results in a changing electric field coupled with it and so on. Thus, a vibrating particle is a source of an electromagnetic field which propagates outwardly with the speed of light and is governed by the laws of optics."