We Knew Warmers Were Wacko...But Really?

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

We already covered this a while ago and you must have forgotten:

The cosmic ray background (CRB) was discovered with a radio telescope. The CRB is a cold 2.725 deg K. Radio telescopes are at ambient outdoor temperatures, averaging 15 deg C. The very cold radiation from the CRB must strike the much warmer parabola dish in order for it to strike a detector at the focal point.

This illustrates that photons from a cold substance can strike a much warmer substance and be detected to have done so.

I'll disagree, the warm is radiating and therefore finds the cold substance.

I'll disagree, the warm is radiating and therefore finds the cold substance.

How does the "warm radiating" measure the temperature of the Universe?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here.

SSDD is confusing movement of heat with radiation. Among other things.

Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD.

so all of these pages of mathematical examples and things and you can't figure out who crickster is. hmmmmm

If you mean Crick, just say Crick.
If you think a certain post had the link that helps poor SSDD, reply to that post.

I did and I did!

No you didn't.
Post #162 was not a reply to another post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

And I agree with no back radiation. No one can prove it. so it's just magic. and has magic powers. I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement and felt obligated to let him know it.

And I agree with no back radiation.

Because you're ignorant.

No one can prove it.

Funny that SSDD's sources said there is.

I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement

Which link in what post do you mistakenly feel did that?

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation. You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link. I thought I included it in my post with the abstract.

Edit: yep I did. post #162.

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation.

Since all objects above 0K radiate, always, you are mistaken.
Even SSDD's own link showed radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.
In post #73.
This link.... http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
Page 16 of the pdf.

You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

Except for SSDD's link. And the SB Law, of course.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link.

Since you didn't respond to Crick's post, your claim is difficult to prove.

Edit: yep I did. post #162

If you don't respond to a post, it's hard to know what you're talking about.
Try again?

 

[jc456]

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

We already covered this a while ago and you must have forgotten:

The cosmic ray background (CRB) was discovered with a radio telescope. The CRB is a cold 2.725 deg K. Radio telescopes are at ambient outdoor temperatures, averaging 15 deg C. The very cold radiation from the CRB must strike the much warmer parabola dish in order for it to strike a detector at the focal point.

This illustrates that photons from a cold substance can strike a much warmer substance and be detected to have done so.

I'll disagree, the warm is radiating and therefore finds the cold substance.

I'll disagree, the warm is radiating and therefore finds the cold substance.

How does the "warm radiating" measure the temperature of the Universe?

it goes to radio shack and gets a meter I supposed.

 

[jc456]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here.

SSDD is confusing movement of heat with radiation. Among other things.

Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD.

so all of these pages of mathematical examples and things and you can't figure out who crickster is. hmmmmm

If you mean Crick, just say Crick.
If you think a certain post had the link that helps poor SSDD, reply to that post.

I did and I did!

No you didn't.
Post #162 was not a reply to another post.

you didn't ask me that. You asked for the link and post. I gave you the post number I put the link information i referenced in. And since reading is a skill and actually using a brain function to understand, my response was to Crickster and I mentioned min and his link, that it wouldn't take too many cells to understand the post. I guess not.

 

[jc456]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

And I agree with no back radiation. No one can prove it. so it's just magic. and has magic powers. I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement and felt obligated to let him know it.

And I agree with no back radiation.

Because you're ignorant.

No one can prove it.

Funny that SSDD's sources said there is.

I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement

Which link in what post do you mistakenly feel did that?

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation. You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link. I thought I included it in my post with the abstract.

Edit: yep I did. post #162.

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation.

Since all objects above 0K radiate, always, you are mistaken.
Even SSDD's own link showed radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.
In post #73.
This link.... http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
Page 16 of the pdf.

You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

Except for SSDD's link. And the SB Law, of course.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link.

Since you didn't respond to Crick's post, your claim is difficult to prove.

Edit: yep I did. post #162

If you don't respond to a post, it's hard to know what you're talking about.
Try again?

"Except for SSDD's link. And the SB Law, of course."
oh how funny, and of course you have evidence of it? How do you know the equation is even accurate if you don't have evidence to support the equation. I'm sure you have it. So please post that and I will gladly tell you I was in error.

"This link.... http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
Page 16 of the pdf."

So what is it in this link on page 16 that you wish me to look at? Proof of back radiation from CO2? Where? I see Clouds radiating, but I do not see any source stating CO2. and the radiation is not absorbed in the oceans. So I still don't know if that is showing back radiation adding heat and I still don't know how you prove infrared out of a cloud back to the surface.

"Since you didn't respond to Crick's post, your claim is difficult to prove."

Yeah right, that's so difficult. The post right after his mentioning his and using a link from his. So that tells me A. you didn't look at Crick's link. so yeah you probably would be lost. but see, I added the link and the abstract and stated it backed SSDD. So whether or not you agree or not with what I wrote, Crickster posted it, look at post #161, and it was a sublink in the link he provided. Whew, that sure took some brain work, LOL.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here.

SSDD is confusing movement of heat with radiation. Among other things.

Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD.

so all of these pages of mathematical examples and things and you can't figure out who crickster is. hmmmmm

If you mean Crick, just say Crick.
If you think a certain post had the link that helps poor SSDD, reply to that post.

I did and I did!

No you didn't.
Post #162 was not a reply to another post.

you didn't ask me that. You asked for the link and post. I gave you the post number I put the link information i referenced in. And since reading is a skill and actually using a brain function to understand, my response was to Crickster and I mentioned min and his link, that it wouldn't take too many cells to understand the post. I guess not.

you didn't ask me that.

If you want your ramblings to be understood, in context, you'll respond to the actual post that you feel you're responding to, that way, everyone can see what Crick said, in response to whatever SSDD idiocy he was refuting, and then we can see if your rambling nonsense actually helped SSDD's point or not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

And I agree with no back radiation. No one can prove it. so it's just magic. and has magic powers. I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement and felt obligated to let him know it.

And I agree with no back radiation.

Because you're ignorant.

No one can prove it.

Funny that SSDD's sources said there is.

I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement

Which link in what post do you mistakenly feel did that?

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation. You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link. I thought I included it in my post with the abstract.

Edit: yep I did. post #162.

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation.

Since all objects above 0K radiate, always, you are mistaken.
Even SSDD's own link showed radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.
In post #73.
This link.... http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
Page 16 of the pdf.

You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

Except for SSDD's link. And the SB Law, of course.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link.

Since you didn't respond to Crick's post, your claim is difficult to prove.

Edit: yep I did. post #162

If you don't respond to a post, it's hard to know what you're talking about.
Try again?

"Except for SSDD's link. And the SB Law, of course."
oh how funny, and of course you have evidence of it? How do you know the equation is even accurate if you don't have evidence to support the equation. I'm sure you have it. So please post that and I will gladly tell you I was in error.

"This link.... http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
Page 16 of the pdf."

So what is it in this link on page 16 that you wish me to look at? Proof of back radiation from CO2? Where? I see Clouds radiating, but I do not see any source stating CO2. and the radiation is not absorbed in the oceans. So I still don't know if that is showing back radiation adding heat and I still don't know how you prove infrared out of a cloud back to the surface.

"Since you didn't respond to Crick's post, your claim is difficult to prove."

Yeah right, that's so difficult. The post right after his mentioning his and using a link from his. So that tells me A. you didn't look at Crick's link. so yeah you probably would be lost. but see, I added the link and the abstract and stated it backed SSDD. So whether or not you agree or not with what I wrote, Crickster posted it, look at post #161, and it was a sublink in the link he provided. Whew, that sure took some brain work, LOL.

So what is it in this link on page 16 that you wish me to look at?

The diagram that shows energy moving from our cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth. You know, backradiation. And it was from SSDD's own link. LOL!

So that tells me A. you didn't look at Crick's link.

Since you didn't indicate which of Crick's posts you were responding to, how am I supposed to know what you're talking about?
If you meant post #161, that was originally a link I posted.

I added the link and the abstract and stated it backed SSDD.

Since you didn't explain what post or comment of SSDD's you feel it supported, how am I supposed to know what you're talking about?

Whew, that sure took some brain work,

You'd better rest then. I know you're not used to working it very hard.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

And I agree with no back radiation. No one can prove it. so it's just magic. and has magic powers. I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement and felt obligated to let him know it.

And I agree with no back radiation.

Because you're ignorant.

No one can prove it.

Funny that SSDD's sources said there is.

I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement

Which link in what post do you mistakenly feel did that?

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation. You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link. I thought I included it in my post with the abstract.

Edit: yep I did. post #162.

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation.

Since all objects above 0K radiate, always, you are mistaken.
Even SSDD's own link showed radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.
In post #73.
This link.... http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
Page 16 of the pdf.

You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

Except for SSDD's link. And the SB Law, of course.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link.

Since you didn't respond to Crick's post, your claim is difficult to prove.

Edit: yep I did. post #162

If you don't respond to a post, it's hard to know what you're talking about.
Try again?

"Except for SSDD's link. And the SB Law, of course."
oh how funny, and of course you have evidence of it? How do you know the equation is even accurate if you don't have evidence to support the equation. I'm sure you have it. So please post that and I will gladly tell you I was in error.

"This link.... http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
Page 16 of the pdf."

So what is it in this link on page 16 that you wish me to look at? Proof of back radiation from CO2? Where? I see Clouds radiating, but I do not see any source stating CO2. and the radiation is not absorbed in the oceans. So I still don't know if that is showing back radiation adding heat and I still don't know how you prove infrared out of a cloud back to the surface.

"Since you didn't respond to Crick's post, your claim is difficult to prove."

Yeah right, that's so difficult. The post right after his mentioning his and using a link from his. So that tells me A. you didn't look at Crick's link. so yeah you probably would be lost. but see, I added the link and the abstract and stated it backed SSDD. So whether or not you agree or not with what I wrote, Crickster posted it, look at post #161, and it was a sublink in the link he provided. Whew, that sure took some brain work, LOL.

How do you know the equation is even accurate if you don't have evidence to support the equation.

You want me to prove this equation?

 

[jc456]

so all of these pages of mathematical examples and things and you can't figure out who crickster is. hmmmmm

If you mean Crick, just say Crick.
If you think a certain post had the link that helps poor SSDD, reply to that post.

I did and I did!

No you didn't.
Post #162 was not a reply to another post.

you didn't ask me that. You asked for the link and post. I gave you the post number I put the link information i referenced in. And since reading is a skill and actually using a brain function to understand, my response was to Crickster and I mentioned min and his link, that it wouldn't take too many cells to understand the post. I guess not.

you didn't ask me that.

If you want your ramblings to be understood, in context, you'll respond to the actual post that you feel you're responding to, that way, everyone can see what Crick said, in response to whatever SSDD idiocy he was refuting, and then we can see if your rambling nonsense actually helped SSDD's point or not.

hey ramboo, what is it you didn't understand. It had a link and an abstract paragraph. I also added the main word from the abstract. What was difficult for ya? holy crap, now I'm not sure you're smart enough to be spewing all this math in here. Got that experimental back radiation evidence yet?

 

[jc456]

And I agree with no back radiation. No one can prove it. so it's just magic. and has magic powers. I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement and felt obligated to let him know it.

And I agree with no back radiation.

Because you're ignorant.

No one can prove it.

Funny that SSDD's sources said there is.

I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement

Which link in what post do you mistakenly feel did that?

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation. You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link. I thought I included it in my post with the abstract.

Edit: yep I did. post #162.

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation.

Since all objects above 0K radiate, always, you are mistaken.
Even SSDD's own link showed radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.
In post #73.
This link.... http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
Page 16 of the pdf.

You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

Except for SSDD's link. And the SB Law, of course.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link.

Since you didn't respond to Crick's post, your claim is difficult to prove.

Edit: yep I did. post #162

If you don't respond to a post, it's hard to know what you're talking about.
Try again?

"Except for SSDD's link. And the SB Law, of course."
oh how funny, and of course you have evidence of it? How do you know the equation is even accurate if you don't have evidence to support the equation. I'm sure you have it. So please post that and I will gladly tell you I was in error.

"This link.... http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
Page 16 of the pdf."

So what is it in this link on page 16 that you wish me to look at? Proof of back radiation from CO2? Where? I see Clouds radiating, but I do not see any source stating CO2. and the radiation is not absorbed in the oceans. So I still don't know if that is showing back radiation adding heat and I still don't know how you prove infrared out of a cloud back to the surface.

"Since you didn't respond to Crick's post, your claim is difficult to prove."

Yeah right, that's so difficult. The post right after his mentioning his and using a link from his. So that tells me A. you didn't look at Crick's link. so yeah you probably would be lost. but see, I added the link and the abstract and stated it backed SSDD. So whether or not you agree or not with what I wrote, Crickster posted it, look at post #161, and it was a sublink in the link he provided. Whew, that sure took some brain work, LOL.

How do you know the equation is even accurate if you don't have evidence to support the equation.

You want me to prove this equation?

I want you to prove back radiation, and you put up the equation.

 

[jc456]

so all of these pages of mathematical examples and things and you can't figure out who crickster is. hmmmmm

If you mean Crick, just say Crick.
If you think a certain post had the link that helps poor SSDD, reply to that post.

I did and I did!

No you didn't.
Post #162 was not a reply to another post.

you didn't ask me that. You asked for the link and post. I gave you the post number I put the link information i referenced in. And since reading is a skill and actually using a brain function to understand, my response was to Crickster and I mentioned min and his link, that it wouldn't take too many cells to understand the post. I guess not.

you didn't ask me that.

If you want your ramblings to be understood, in context, you'll respond to the actual post that you feel you're responding to, that way, everyone can see what Crick said, in response to whatever SSDD idiocy he was refuting, and then we can see if your rambling nonsense actually helped SSDD's point or not.

see post #162.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you mean Crick, just say Crick.
If you think a certain post had the link that helps poor SSDD, reply to that post.

I did and I did!

No you didn't.
Post #162 was not a reply to another post.

you didn't ask me that. You asked for the link and post. I gave you the post number I put the link information i referenced in. And since reading is a skill and actually using a brain function to understand, my response was to Crickster and I mentioned min and his link, that it wouldn't take too many cells to understand the post. I guess not.

you didn't ask me that.

If you want your ramblings to be understood, in context, you'll respond to the actual post that you feel you're responding to, that way, everyone can see what Crick said, in response to whatever SSDD idiocy he was refuting, and then we can see if your rambling nonsense actually helped SSDD's point or not.

hey ramboo, what is it you didn't understand. It had a link and an abstract paragraph. I also added the main word from the abstract. What was difficult for ya? holy crap, now I'm not sure you're smart enough to be spewing all this math in here. Got that experimental back radiation evidence yet?

hey ramboo, what is it you didn't understand.

What post were you responding to? What did you refute? What did you support?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I agree with no back radiation.

Because you're ignorant.

No one can prove it.

Funny that SSDD's sources said there is.

I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement

Which link in what post do you mistakenly feel did that?

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation. You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link. I thought I included it in my post with the abstract.

Edit: yep I did. post #162.

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation.

Since all objects above 0K radiate, always, you are mistaken.
Even SSDD's own link showed radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.
In post #73.
This link.... http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
Page 16 of the pdf.

You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

Except for SSDD's link. And the SB Law, of course.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link.

Since you didn't respond to Crick's post, your claim is difficult to prove.

Edit: yep I did. post #162

If you don't respond to a post, it's hard to know what you're talking about.
Try again?

"Except for SSDD's link. And the SB Law, of course."
oh how funny, and of course you have evidence of it? How do you know the equation is even accurate if you don't have evidence to support the equation. I'm sure you have it. So please post that and I will gladly tell you I was in error.

"This link.... http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
Page 16 of the pdf."

So what is it in this link on page 16 that you wish me to look at? Proof of back radiation from CO2? Where? I see Clouds radiating, but I do not see any source stating CO2. and the radiation is not absorbed in the oceans. So I still don't know if that is showing back radiation adding heat and I still don't know how you prove infrared out of a cloud back to the surface.

"Since you didn't respond to Crick's post, your claim is difficult to prove."

Yeah right, that's so difficult. The post right after his mentioning his and using a link from his. So that tells me A. you didn't look at Crick's link. so yeah you probably would be lost. but see, I added the link and the abstract and stated it backed SSDD. So whether or not you agree or not with what I wrote, Crickster posted it, look at post #161, and it was a sublink in the link he provided. Whew, that sure took some brain work, LOL.

How do you know the equation is even accurate if you don't have evidence to support the equation.

You want me to prove this equation?

I want you to prove back radiation, and you put up the equation.

Here is the proof of back radiation.

 

[jc456]

I did and I did!

No you didn't.
Post #162 was not a reply to another post.

you didn't ask me that. You asked for the link and post. I gave you the post number I put the link information i referenced in. And since reading is a skill and actually using a brain function to understand, my response was to Crickster and I mentioned min and his link, that it wouldn't take too many cells to understand the post. I guess not.

you didn't ask me that.

If you want your ramblings to be understood, in context, you'll respond to the actual post that you feel you're responding to, that way, everyone can see what Crick said, in response to whatever SSDD idiocy he was refuting, and then we can see if your rambling nonsense actually helped SSDD's point or not.

hey ramboo, what is it you didn't understand. It had a link and an abstract paragraph. I also added the main word from the abstract. What was difficult for ya? holy crap, now I'm not sure you're smart enough to be spewing all this math in here. Got that experimental back radiation evidence yet?

hey ramboo, what is it you didn't understand.

What post were you responding to? What did you refute? What did you support?

what I said in the post #162. Go read it.

 

[Wuwei]

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

We already covered this a while ago and you must have forgotten:

The cosmic ray background (CRB) was discovered with a radio telescope. The CRB is a cold 2.725 deg K. Radio telescopes are at ambient outdoor temperatures, averaging 15 deg C. The very cold radiation from the CRB must strike the much warmer parabola dish in order for it to strike a detector at the focal point.

This illustrates that photons from a cold substance can strike a much warmer substance and be detected to have done so.

I'll disagree, the warm is radiating and therefore finds the cold substance.

I don't think you understand what you are typing. It is the cold background radiation that is striking the much warmer radio telescope.

 

[SSDD]

Since all objects above 0K radiate, always, you are mistaken.

You are always saying that....lets test your claim,. We will kill two birds with one stone...we will test both your junior high level math skills and see what sort of character you possess simply by looking at your answer which, if you possess good character need only be one word.

Yo claim all objects above 0K radiate all the time. Here is the equation that describes the radiating power of an object above 0K

lets tale the discussion out of the hypothetical and make it real....lets plug some numbers into it representing actual temperatures

Solve for P which is the radiating power of our radiator, What is the radiating power of P. Hint: It is a one word answer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since all objects above 0K radiate, always, you are mistaken.

You are always saying that....lets test your claim,. We will kill two birds with one stone...we will test both your junior high level math skills and see what sort of character you possess simply by looking at your answer which, if you possess good character need only be one word.

Yo claim all objects above 0K radiate all the time. Here is the equation that describes the radiating power of an object above 0K

lets tale the discussion out of the hypothetical and make it real....lets plug some numbers into it representing actual temperatures

Solve for P which is the radiating power of our radiator, What is the radiating power of P. Hint: It is a one word answer.

Since all objects above 0K radiate, always,

You are always saying that....lets test your claim,.

It's not my claim, it's common knowledge.

Solve for P which is the radiating power of our radiator,

You aren't solving for radiating power, because that would be
P = εAσ(255^4)
Your equation is solving for net power radiated.

You need to get over your "dimmer switch" view of radiation.

 

[SSDD]

Solve for P which is the radiating power of our radiator,

You aren't solving for radiating power, because that would be
P = εAσ(255^4)

So you are no good at math.....you don't have a clue as to what the equations are saying....you don't know what an equation describing net looks like and you your character is wanting....disappointing, but not really surprising.

The above equation describes a radiator radiating into a vacuum at 0k

Your equation is solving for net power radiated.

Since we have already been through that and know that there is no expression there that references incoming radiation to the radiator from any other source which would be required for an equation describing a net change....we have an equation which describes nothing more than a change in outgoing radiation....much like partially closing the gates on a dam...which is a gross change.

The equation I provided calculates the radiating power of a radiator radiating into something other than a radiator radiating into a vacuum at 0K as evidenced by the expression describing the surrounding temperature. I believe you know this but lack the character required to admit it. How does it feel to be as dishonest as the true warmer wackos?

The equations say what they say.....and there is nothing there that would indicate net change. I didn't make them up...but I, unlike you do know enough math to know what they are describing.

 

[IanC]

Everything radiates at P=kT4, all the time. That is the universal law. Everything is trying to shed energy as fast as it can . a game of hot potato. Entropy.

If another object is nearby, it is also radiating at P=kT4. The net energy exchange is Pnet= Pwarm - Pcool. Both objects are still radiating at P=kT4.

SSDD has a fundamental disconnect because he gives properties of matter to photons. Water in a pipe moves in the direction of highest pressure because matter cannot coexist in the same place at the same time. Photons fly through other photons as if there was nothing there, eg light fibers that sent information both directions at the same time.

One of the fatal flaws in SSDD's version is that variable radiation would decrease the amount of momentum exchanged between the objects. This would decrease entropy. A big no-no in the real world.