The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[IanC]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

I am sorry you are so easily confused.

All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.

This conversation is mainly concerned with radiation. Radiation does not need matter to transport energy, only to produce it and to accept it. Unlike conduction and convection.

Therefore energy via radiation can, and does, travel in both (all) directions at the same time. Matter mediated energy transfer is only in one direction, at the level of the net competing energies.

SSDD thinks the temperature of the first object controls the production of radiation in the second object. And vice versa.

Alas it is you who is confused ian. You are confused at the most fundamental level and that error trickles up into, and pollutes your more complex ideas...

And again, it isn't what I think...it is what the physical law states. Once again...

...change the difference between T and Tc and P changes. There is no expression for net within that equation. Your notion that all matter radiates according to its temperature only applies if that matter happens to be a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...the fact that you can't admit your error on that basic fact pollutes every thing you have to say on the topic.

That equation is stating that the net power transferred between two objects is the power of object(1) minus the power of object(2).

 

[SSDD]

Your question is framed in a nonsensical way. Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

I am sorry you are so easily confused.

All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.

This conversation is mainly concerned with radiation. Radiation does not need matter to transport energy, only to produce it and to accept it. Unlike conduction and convection.

Therefore energy via radiation can, and does, travel in both (all) directions at the same time. Matter mediated energy transfer is only in one direction, at the level of the net competing energies.

SSDD thinks the temperature of the first object controls the production of radiation in the second object. And vice versa.

Alas it is you who is confused ian. You are confused at the most fundamental level and that error trickles up into, and pollutes your more complex ideas...

And again, it isn't what I think...it is what the physical law states. Once again...

...change the difference between T and Tc and P changes. There is no expression for net within that equation. Your notion that all matter radiates according to its temperature only applies if that matter happens to be a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...the fact that you can't admit your error on that basic fact pollutes every thing you have to say on the topic.

That equation is stating that the net power transferred between two objects is the power of object(1) minus the power of object(2).

Still can't read a basic equation huh? That equation says, and I quote " the power emitted by the radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant times its area times the difference between the temperatures to the 4th power of the object and its background"

Any reference to "net" is derived entirely from your imagination since it does not come from that equation.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

I am sorry you are so easily confused.

All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.

This conversation is mainly concerned with radiation. Radiation does not need matter to transport energy, only to produce it and to accept it. Unlike conduction and convection.

Therefore energy via radiation can, and does, travel in both (all) directions at the same time. Matter mediated energy transfer is only in one direction, at the level of the net competing energies.

SSDD thinks the temperature of the first object controls the production of radiation in the second object. And vice versa.

Alas it is you who is confused ian. You are confused at the most fundamental level and that error trickles up into, and pollutes your more complex ideas...

And again, it isn't what I think...it is what the physical law states. Once again...

...change the difference between T and Tc and P changes. There is no expression for net within that equation. Your notion that all matter radiates according to its temperature only applies if that matter happens to be a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...the fact that you can't admit your error on that basic fact pollutes every thing you have to say on the topic.

That equation is stating that the net power transferred between two objects is the power of object(1) minus the power of object(2).

Still can't read a basic equation huh? That equation says, and I quote " the power emitted by the radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant times its area times the difference between the temperatures to the 4th power of the object and its background"

Any reference to "net" is derived entirely from your imagination since it does not come from that equation.

The word NET is their big problem since it doesn't fit in anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to come up with an observed, measured example of it...what you come up with in spades is evidence that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

And if all this were as simple as your "mind" experiments suggest, surely there would be observed, measured examples...we both know that there aren't...because your mind experiments are terribly flawed.

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

I am sorry you are so easily confused.

All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.

This conversation is mainly concerned with radiation. Radiation does not need matter to transport energy, only to produce it and to accept it. Unlike conduction and convection.

Therefore energy via radiation can, and does, travel in both (all) directions at the same time. Matter mediated energy transfer is only in one direction, at the level of the net competing energies.

SSDD thinks the temperature of the first object controls the production of radiation in the second object. And vice versa.

Alas it is you who is confused ian. You are confused at the most fundamental level and that error trickles up into, and pollutes your more complex ideas...

And again, it isn't what I think...it is what the physical law states. Once again...

...change the difference between T and Tc and P changes. There is no expression for net within that equation. Your notion that all matter radiates according to its temperature only applies if that matter happens to be a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...the fact that you can't admit your error on that basic fact pollutes every thing you have to say on the topic.

That equation is stating that the net power transferred between two objects is the power of object(1) minus the power of object(2).

Still can't read a basic equation huh? That equation says, and I quote " the power emitted by the radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant times its area times the difference between the temperatures to the 4th power of the object and its background"

Any reference to "net" is derived entirely from your imagination since it does not come from that equation.

" the power emitted by the radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant times its area times the difference between the temperatures to the 4th power of the object and its background"

You're lying.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What a confusing statement this is:

"Net energy, heat, always flows from warm to cold."

How does it become net when energy flows in ONE direction from high to low, hot to cold and so on.

I am sorry you are so easily confused.

All heat is energy but energy is not always heat.

This conversation is mainly concerned with radiation. Radiation does not need matter to transport energy, only to produce it and to accept it. Unlike conduction and convection.

Therefore energy via radiation can, and does, travel in both (all) directions at the same time. Matter mediated energy transfer is only in one direction, at the level of the net competing energies.

SSDD thinks the temperature of the first object controls the production of radiation in the second object. And vice versa.

Alas it is you who is confused ian. You are confused at the most fundamental level and that error trickles up into, and pollutes your more complex ideas...

And again, it isn't what I think...it is what the physical law states. Once again...

...change the difference between T and Tc and P changes. There is no expression for net within that equation. Your notion that all matter radiates according to its temperature only applies if that matter happens to be a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...the fact that you can't admit your error on that basic fact pollutes every thing you have to say on the topic.

That equation is stating that the net power transferred between two objects is the power of object(1) minus the power of object(2).

Still can't read a basic equation huh? That equation says, and I quote " the power emitted by the radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant times its area times the difference between the temperatures to the 4th power of the object and its background"

Any reference to "net" is derived entirely from your imagination since it does not come from that equation.

The word NET is their big problem since it doesn't fit in anything.

You on the smart photon bandwagon?

 

[Old Rocks]

The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.

So then you can provide observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions? Of course you can't...but you just had to speak up anyway didn't you?

Well here it is. He finally said it:"So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body"
And as soon as you point out that if it was this cooler body which added energy to the warmer then the cooler body would have had to cool down even more. We all know that can`t happen, so they "explain" it by pointing out that the warmer body radiates at the same time towards the cooler one which is why both will equilibrate at equal temperatures but below the temperature the warmer one had at the start...which unfortunately means it did not gain any energy but lost it to the colder one. At that point they all over sudden resort to a 3rd energy source, the sun and deny they added energy to the warmer body by just using a cooler body.
Heat energy in whatever form is expressed in work units. It takes work (=energy) to raise the temperature of a mass and the colder body can not perform this work. Which is why there is no way around that except using the 3rd source, the sun again while obfuscating the "added energy from the colder body" process.
That is accomplished by ignoring the mass of each of the 2 bodies which in the end is what they need to do in order to use the CO2 to "add energy" to Ew. On average air has a specific heat of 0.24 btu per degF and per pound. See how easy it was to do that CO2 and "energy adding" cheat by simply ignoring the mass ?

LOL Yes, when a body radiates energy, it cools. And just what the fuck do you mean that a colder body cannot 'perform this work'? We are not talking of work, we are speaking of individual packets of energy, photons, that all bodies above absolute zero emit. And those photons don't give a damn whether they strike, and add energy, to a body warmer or cooler than the one that emitted that photon. Again, a cooler body can emit a photon that strikes a warmer body and adds energy to that body. Simple physical fact.

The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.

So then you can provide observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions? Of course you can't...but you just had to speak up anyway didn't you?

Well here it is. He finally said it:"So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body"
And as soon as you point out that if it was this cooler body which added energy to the warmer then the cooler body would have had to cool down even more. We all know that can`t happen, so they "explain" it by pointing out that the warmer body radiates at the same time towards the cooler one which is why both will equilibrate at equal temperatures but below the temperature the warmer one had at the start...which unfortunately means it did not gain any energy but lost it to the colder one. At that point they all over sudden resort to a 3rd energy source, the sun and deny they added energy to the warmer body by just using a cooler body.
Heat energy in whatever form is expressed in work units. It takes work (=energy) to raise the temperature of a mass and the colder body can not perform this work. Which is why there is no way around that except using the 3rd source, the sun again while obfuscating the "added energy from the colder body" process.
That is accomplished by ignoring the mass of each of the 2 bodies which in the end is what they need to do in order to use the CO2 to "add energy" to Ew. On average air has a specific heat of 0.24 btu per degF and per pound. See how easy it was to do that CO2 and "energy adding" cheat by simply ignoring the mass ?

LOL Yes, when a body radiates energy, it cools. And just what the fuck do you mean that a colder body cannot 'perform this work'? We are not talking of work, we are speaking of individual packets of energy, photons, that all bodies above absolute zero emit. And those photons don't give a damn whether they strike, and add energy, to a body warmer or cooler than the one that emitted that photon. Again, a cooler body can emit a photon that strikes a warmer body and adds energy to that body. Simple physical fact.

Okay I`ll make it real simple for you OldRocks.
If you grab a hot potato in a kitchen sink the energy content in the sink is that of your hand and the potato.
Now you crank open the cold water faucet and you say the cold water "added energy" to the potato.
The only thing that got energy "added" was the kitchen sink, but not the potato.
The kitchen sink now holds the calories of the mass of water at x degrees + whatever cals the potato amounted to...but in no way was any energy added to the potato from the cold water...comprendre?

God damn! I thought you were smarter than that. We are not discussing conduction, we are discussing energy in radiation. A photon does not care whether the source was warmer or colder than whatever it is that absorbs it's energy. If you cannot see this, then you should not be discussing this subject. No such thing as smart photons.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.

So then you can provide observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions? Of course you can't...but you just had to speak up anyway didn't you?

Well here it is. He finally said it:"So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body"
And as soon as you point out that if it was this cooler body which added energy to the warmer then the cooler body would have had to cool down even more. We all know that can`t happen, so they "explain" it by pointing out that the warmer body radiates at the same time towards the cooler one which is why both will equilibrate at equal temperatures but below the temperature the warmer one had at the start...which unfortunately means it did not gain any energy but lost it to the colder one. At that point they all over sudden resort to a 3rd energy source, the sun and deny they added energy to the warmer body by just using a cooler body.
Heat energy in whatever form is expressed in work units. It takes work (=energy) to raise the temperature of a mass and the colder body can not perform this work. Which is why there is no way around that except using the 3rd source, the sun again while obfuscating the "added energy from the colder body" process.
That is accomplished by ignoring the mass of each of the 2 bodies which in the end is what they need to do in order to use the CO2 to "add energy" to Ew. On average air has a specific heat of 0.24 btu per degF and per pound. See how easy it was to do that CO2 and "energy adding" cheat by simply ignoring the mass ?

He finally said it:"So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body"

Do you feel that radiation from a cooler body is prohibited from hitting a warmer body?

You need to ask some basic questions..

1. Can the mass receiving the energy respond to that wavelength? Can it do anything with the energy? IF the answer is no, then I don't care how much energy you throw at it, in that wavelength, it will have no effect.

2. Is the mass receiving the energy in a negative or ground state capable of absorption?

Its not so much hitting the mass as it is the mass being in a state it can use it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Earth is not a closed system. And we are not talking about heat flow, but radiation. Everything radiates if it is not at absolute zero. And a photon from a body does not care if it intercepts a warmer body than the one that emitted that photon. So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body.

So then you can provide observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from cool regions to warm regions? Of course you can't...but you just had to speak up anyway didn't you?

Well here it is. He finally said it:"So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body"
And as soon as you point out that if it was this cooler body which added energy to the warmer then the cooler body would have had to cool down even more. We all know that can`t happen, so they "explain" it by pointing out that the warmer body radiates at the same time towards the cooler one which is why both will equilibrate at equal temperatures but below the temperature the warmer one had at the start...which unfortunately means it did not gain any energy but lost it to the colder one. At that point they all over sudden resort to a 3rd energy source, the sun and deny they added energy to the warmer body by just using a cooler body.
Heat energy in whatever form is expressed in work units. It takes work (=energy) to raise the temperature of a mass and the colder body can not perform this work. Which is why there is no way around that except using the 3rd source, the sun again while obfuscating the "added energy from the colder body" process.
That is accomplished by ignoring the mass of each of the 2 bodies which in the end is what they need to do in order to use the CO2 to "add energy" to Ew. On average air has a specific heat of 0.24 btu per degF and per pound. See how easy it was to do that CO2 and "energy adding" cheat by simply ignoring the mass ?

He finally said it:"So, yes, radiation from a cooler body can add energy to a warmer body"

Do you feel that radiation from a cooler body is prohibited from hitting a warmer body?

You need to ask some basic questions..

1. Can the mass receiving the energy respond to that wavelength? Can it do anything with the energy? IF the answer is no, then I don't care how much energy you throw at it, in that wavelength, it will have no effect.

2. Is the mass receiving the energy in a negative or ground state capable of absorption?

Its not so much hitting the mass as it is the mass being in a state it can use it.

Can the mass receiving the energy respond to that wavelength? Can it do anything with the energy?

Yes. Yes.

Is the mass receiving the energy in a negative or ground state capable of absorption?​

Please provide a link explaining "negative state".​

​

Its not so much hitting the mass ​

It is that much, when discussing SSDD's claims that the cooler object is prohibited from emitting toward the warmer. And your claim that "covailent" bonds created an EM field that repels "cooler" photons.​

 

[Wuwei]

You still don't get it.. and no matter how you torture it a resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB.

You are absolutely right. Each resonant radio frequency is not the actual CMB itself, it is an output of the detector's measurement of the CMB. Of course what we are talking about is how the CMB hit the warm earth and got to that instrument in the first place.

 

[Wuwei]

sorry guy..not elegant and not complete...this is what it looks like when it is finished..

Ah. So you choose physics by elegance. But scientists think your idea of elegance is so passé. Try moving to a more modern idea of elegance that is now the rage among all scientists.

Emission: Rₑ = eσT₁⁴
Absorption: Rₐ =eσT₂⁴

Now that's what everyone considers elegant. So simple. You get two equations for the price of one. Of course you can dirty it up by making it easer to calculate.

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = eσT₁⁴ - eσT₂⁴ = eσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

 

[SSDD]

You still don't get it.. and no matter how you torture it a resonant radio frequency is never going to be CMB.

You are absolutely right. Each resonant radio frequency is not the actual CMB itself, it is an output of the detector's measurement of the CMB. Of course what we are talking about is how the CMB hit the warm earth and got to that instrument in the first place.

It never did...a resonant radio frequency hit the instrument...this isn't that complicated...you, however turn it into pseudoscientific gobbldy goop trying to torture it into representing the impossible...that being energy moving from cool to warm.

 

[SSDD]

sorry guy..not elegant and not complete...this is what it looks like when it is finished..

Ah. So you choose physics by elegance. But scientists think your idea of elegance is so passé. Try moving to a more modern idea of elegance that is now the rage among all scientists.

Emission: Rₑ = eσT₁⁴
Absorption: Rₐ =eσT₂⁴

Now that's what everyone considers elegant. So simple. You get two equations for the price of one. Of course you can dirty it up by making it easer to calculate.

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = eσT₁⁴ - eσT₂⁴ = eσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

F'ing idiot...do you see how many times you are using the SB constant in that idiot equation? Use your brain just for one second if that is possible....

And I am still waiting for you to show me either in a mathematical text, or a physics text where it is acceptable, and good math to apply an algebraic property to an equation that is already reduced....or to fail to reduce a equation that is clearly calling out for it for that matter. Here is a hint goober, applying properties in an attempt to prove non physical energy movement is not acceptable in physics.

 

[SSDD]

The word NET is their big problem since it doesn't fit in anything.

Hell, look at wuwei..thinking that by adding on the distributive property to an equation, or failing to reduce an equation that is clearly calling out for it he can make energy flow from cool to warm...look at that ridiculous equation he posted...he ends up with

which is the correct form of the equation but thinks that because at one point he had this

prior to completing the math, that somehow net energy flow must be true... In doing so he completely ignores that his equation completely ignores the assumption in the SB law that T > Tc and they physical meaning of the application of the distributive property is completely missing.

then there is ian who likes to post this equation

and claim that all matter emits all the time according to its temperature in spite of the fact that I took the time to correspond with several world class physicists who stated clearly that that particular equation referred to a perfect black body, perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum and if you introduce any other matter whatsoever, then you must switch over to this equation

.

It is little wonder that they think what they do...they apparently can do the simple math but are completely unable to read and understand what the equations say...and if you point out what they equations say to one of them, he is perfectly willing do do shoddy math and apply an algebraic property to the equation without bothering to assign a physical meaning to the property he is applying...as if all math in physics does not attempt to describe physical reality and therefore require a physical meaning.

Even though neither are scientists, they both exemplify what is wrong with climate science..and the creeping decay happening in other fields as well. Neither one understands that mathematics, in physics is a language, writing out sentences that attempt to describe physical reality...and if you alter the sentence, you alter the meaning of the statement the equation is making....in short, you make the equation describe a non physical reality. And no matter how much you point this out, they simply won't accept that truth because the physical reality that the equations describe do not mesh with their non physical beliefs.

And unfortunately, these basic mathematical facts are not described in physics texts because it is assumed that by the time you get to that level in math, you understand the fact that math is a language...describing physical phenomena and if you alter the math, you alter the description and turn it into a description of a non physical phenomenon.

 

[Wuwei]

It never did...a resonant radio frequency hit the instrument...this isn't that complicated...you, however turn it into pseudoscientific gobbldy goop trying to torture it into representing the impossible...that being energy moving from cool to warm.

Right, it isn't complicated, but it you are making it complicated by representing the impossible and turning a full black body spectrum into a "resonant radio frequency". Care to elaborate on how you think the BB continuum turns into a single frequency before it hits the atmosphere? or are you playing the troll again?

 

[Wuwei]

F'ing idiot...do you see how many times you are using the SB constant in that idiot equation? Use your brain just for one second if that is possible....

And I am still waiting for you to show me either in a mathematical text, or a physics text where it is acceptable, and good math to apply an algebraic property to an equation that is already reduced....or to fail to reduce a equation that is clearly calling out for it for that matter. Here is a hint goober, applying properties in an attempt to prove non physical energy movement is not acceptable in physics.

Now you are defining physics laws in terms of how you think algebra should look. Scientists think of the physics first and then the algebra. We already showed you a physics text, it had this derivation of net energy:

Emission: Rₑ = eσT₁⁴
Absorption: Rₐ =eσT₂⁴
Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = eσT₁⁴ - eσT₂⁴ = eσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

All scientists understand that is the only way it can be, but trolls have their own idea of what might be called "smart photons" pseudo-science.

 

[SSDD]

F'ing idiot...do you see how many times you are using the SB constant in that idiot equation? Use your brain just for one second if that is possible....

And I am still waiting for you to show me either in a mathematical text, or a physics text where it is acceptable, and good math to apply an algebraic property to an equation that is already reduced....or to fail to reduce a equation that is clearly calling out for it for that matter. Here is a hint goober, applying properties in an attempt to prove non physical energy movement is not acceptable in physics.

Now you are defining physics laws in terms of how you think algebra should look. Scientists think of the physics first and then the algebra. We already showed you a physics text, it had this derivation of net energy:

Emission: Rₑ = eσT₁⁴
Absorption: Rₐ =eσT₂⁴
Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = eσT₁⁴ - eσT₂⁴ = eσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

All scientists understand that is the only way it can be, but trolls have their own idea of what might be called "smart photons" pseudo-science.

There are a couple of things your idiot equation ignores, but I will point out the most glariing of them....The SB law assumes that T > Tc...in case you are unable to read that bit of math and apply it to the SB Law, it means that the SB law assumes that the temperature of the radiator is always greater than the temperature of its surroundings. Your idiot equation allows you to set T to a temperature lower than that of Tc and therefore invalidate the equation..

Once again...math is a language and when you alter the math, you alter the statement it was intended to make. You clearly aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you have to be pretty damned stupid not to grasp that.

And by the way, in case you didn't notice...the experession after the last equals sign in your equation is the very equation I have been pointing out all along that has no expression with which to derive net.

 

[Wuwei]

There are a couple of things your idiot equation ignores, but I will point out the most glariing of them.

I told you many times it is Stefan's equation, not mine.

The SB law assumes that T > Tc...in case you are unable to read that bit of math and apply it to the SB Law, it means that the SB law assumes that the temperature of the radiator is always greater than the temperature of its surroundings. Your idiot equation allows you to set T to a temperature lower than that of Tc and therefore invalidate the equation..

Rₑ and Rₐ are both always positive. In some cases Rₑ can be greater than Rₐ and sometimes smaller. That corresponds to which temperature is greater.

Once again...math is a language and when you alter the math, you alter the statement it was intended to make.

A physics law or theorem expressed as math is a relationship between variables. That relationship is the essence of the underlying physics. That essence is not changed by algebraic manipulations.

And by the way, in case you didn't notice...the experession after the last equals sign in your equation is the very equation I have been pointing out all along that has no expression with which to derive net.

Since two positive numbers are subtracted in the last expression, it can be positive (emitting more energy than absorbing) or negative (absorbing more than it is emitting). The concept of net pervades many areas of physics (and finance).

You first have to define a direction that will be considered as positive, for forces, heat flow etc. If the net is negative in a particular case, the energy or force is going opposite to the defined direction.

The final term of the SB equation can be positive or negative indicating respectively that the energy flow is away from or toward the defined direction. The defined direction for heat flow is the outward surface normal.

 

[SSDD]

There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....it doesn't exist out here in the real world as evidenced by your inability to show any observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm...and no..your example of a resonance radio frequency is not an example of anything other than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation. A common trait among the dupes who believe in AGW...it would have to be.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....it doesn't exist out here in the real world as evidenced by your inability to show any observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm...and no..your example of a resonance radio frequency is not an example of anything other than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation. A common trait among the dupes who believe in AGW...it would have to be.

There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. 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.

His mind, Science Magazine, The Handbook of Modern Sensors.

The only place where energy only moves one way is in your mind. Weird.

 

[SSDD]

There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....it doesn't exist out here in the real world as evidenced by your inability to show any observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm...and no..your example of a resonance radio frequency is not an example of anything other than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation. A common trait among the dupes who believe in AGW...it would have to be.

There is no "net" except within your terribly mistaken mind....

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. 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.

His mind, Science Magazine, The Handbook of Modern Sensors.

The only place where energy only moves one way is in your mind. Weird.

Another mind experiment...and not the first actual measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...how completely unsurprising....yyyaaaaawwwwwnnnnnn