We Knew Warmers Were Wacko...But Really?

[SSDD]

now you are telling us their experiments were done in a vacuum at zero Kelvin? hahahahaha

the gross flow of radiation from any object is kT^4. it is always there.

net flow is kT^4 minus the amount of radiation the object receives back from the environment.

Just stating what the equation represents....if you think that is funny...OK...but it is what the equation represents none the less and you know it.

As to net...prove mathematically that the equation is one that provides information about net radiation flow rather than gross radiation flow...you and I both know that if it were an equation providing information regarding net flows it would be constructed differently but go ahead and prove mathematically that it is calculating net flow....'

Or grow up enough to admit that you know it is an equation that calculates gross flow but that you disagree with it....which is closer to the truth, isn't it. You would rather lie about what the equations represent than allow that you have been making statements that you can't support...are you prepared to lie indefinitely?....because we both know that there is no mathematical proof that can make an equation for gross energy flow into one expressing net energy flow. Net is an assumption....an unobserved, unmeasured, untestable assumption....nothing more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In your eyes an equation, derived from the SB law where P=0 is not proof to you?

That is proof. Proof that net energy transfer is zero.
Still waiting for you to prove that means both stopped radiating.

I see you couldn't tell me how much radiation an unknown radiator or radiators were emitting when the temperature of the air is 58 degrees. I guess you can't derive any such information from a mere temperature which is all that the SB equation gives about its surroundings....clearly it is not an equation that gives information about net anything...simply claiming that it is net when the equation clearly is not net just keeps on giving up information about you.

Since you could provide no evidence of an expression in the equation which gave any actual amount of incoming radiation from another source which would be required if one were going to write an equation showing a net energy exchange

P = εAσ(255^4)

This is the equation showing the energy radiated by an object at 255K into a vacuum with surroundings at 0K.

P = εAσ(250^4)

This is the equation showing the energy radiated by an object at 250K into a vacuum with surroundings at 0K.

When you put them next to each other, P = εAσ(255^4 - 250^4) shows the net energy lost by the warmer object and gained by the cooler object.

No...those both only give you information about how much energy they are radiating into a vacuum at 0 degrees K...neither gives any information at all about any sort of incoming radiation...they are radiating into an empty vacuum so there is no need for information about any other radiator.....if there were two radiators in the vacuum, then the temperature wouldn't be zero....would it?...and another equation would be required.

they are both radiating, all the time.p.quote]

If each is a perfect black body alone in a vacuum at zero degrees K....you really don't know what the equations are saying do you?

And you have yet to provide a source that agrees with your silly claim that any object over 0K stops radiating, ever.p.

The fact that you don't know what the equations are describing doesn't alter the fact that they are describing a perfect black body radiator all alone in a vacuum at 0 degrees K...if the two were in the same space, the temperature wouldn't be zero degrees K and a different equation would be required...if you can't even grasp what the equations are describing, how do you suppose you can be right about an assumption on your part....you have failed on the basics...any assumption you make will be the result of an incorrect grasp of the basics.

Why such a long term failure to find a source that agrees with you?p.

The law itself agrees with me...what else do I need...P=0 in the equation I provided...you can provide no evidence whatsoever that proves that the equation is yielding a net energy flow because you can provide no evidence that there is any information about incoming radiation...your proof so far has been to provide information about two radiators, each alone in their own vacuum at 0 degrees K....if they were together, the temperature would not be zero...fail again.

You just can't find a single source that agrees with you.

Except the SB law itself...that is enough for me. Again, how much radiation is an unknown radiator or radiators emitting when the air temperature is 58 degrees? That is all the information about the surroundings that the equations give you...How much?

If your confusion was correct, you'd have thousands of sources describing objects above 0K that suddenly stopped radiating, instead of zero sources.

Can you provide a single observed, measured example of net radiative transfer? Of course not...since you can't provide a single observed, ,measured example of back radiation.

I don't have any sources that disagree that net energy exchange is zero in the example you gave.

Since there is no information about incoming radiation from another radiator, the question is moot....clearly the equation is providing information about gross energy movement....the closest you came to giving any sort of an answer was an epic fail...you give an equation that describes a theoretical perfect black body all alone radiating in a vacuum with a temperature of 0 degrees K twice and claim that is some sort of proof. The absurdity is amazing.

If only you had a source that agrees all radiating ceased in your example.......

The equation itself says P=0 and the best you can do is provide examples that simply assume net...lets see the proof that the equation is deriving net. Not just saying net but mathematically proving net.

No...those both only give you information about how much energy they are radiating into a vacuum at 0 degrees K

The equation tells you how much they are radiating. If there is no object radiating back, it also tells you their energy loss.
If there is an object radiating back, you need to add the energy gained to find the net energy loss.

if there were two radiators in the vacuum, then the temperature wouldn't be zero....would it?...and another equation would be required.

Or you would have to use the complicated mathematical operation known as addition.

The law itself agrees with me...what else do I need

You need a source that says objects above 0K stop radiating. Ever.
Your failure to provide one is obvious.

Since there is no information about incoming radiation from another radiator

Plug in the radiator info into the SB formula. That will give you the incoming radiation.

lets see the proof that the equation is deriving net. Not just saying net but mathematically proving net

Let's see the proof any object above 0K stops radiating.
Not just your misinterpretation of the SB.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

now you are telling us their experiments were done in a vacuum at zero Kelvin? hahahahaha

the gross flow of radiation from any object is kT^4. it is always there.

net flow is kT^4 minus the amount of radiation the object receives back from the environment.

The only thing he's shown in this thread is that his brain operates in a vacuum at 0K.

 

[SSDD]

The only thing he's shown in this thread is that his brain operates in a vacuum at 0K.

Laugh it up buwheeet....what you haven't done is shown any sort of mathematical proof that the equation in question is calculating net anything.....a point upon which your whole argument rests....fail to do that and you just fail...You can say whatever you care to say....proving it correct on the other hand seems to be problematic for you....

Lets see the mathematical proof that the equation is calculating net. Laugh it up while you fail...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only thing he's shown in this thread is that his brain operates in a vacuum at 0K.

Laugh it up buwheeet....what you haven't done is shown any sort of mathematical proof that the equation in question is calculating net anything.....a point upon which your whole argument rests....fail to do that and you just fail...You can say whatever you care to say....proving it correct on the other hand seems to be problematic for you....

Lets see the mathematical proof that the equation is calculating net. Laugh it up while you fail...

Still no proof objects above 0K stop radiating.
What was your explanation for our measurement of the temperature of the CBR?
I'm sure it's just as funny as the rest of your confusion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only thing he's shown in this thread is that his brain operates in a vacuum at 0K.

Laugh it up buwheeet....what you haven't done is shown any sort of mathematical proof that the equation in question is calculating net anything.....a point upon which your whole argument rests....fail to do that and you just fail...You can say whatever you care to say....proving it correct on the other hand seems to be problematic for you....

Lets see the mathematical proof that the equation is calculating net. Laugh it up while you fail...

Lets see the mathematical proof that the equation is calculating net.

Human body emission[edit]


Much of a person's energy is radiated away in the form of infrared light. Some materials are transparent in the infrared, but opaque to visible light, as is the plastic bag in this infrared image (bottom). Other materials are transparent to visible light, but opaque or reflective in the infrared, noticeable by darkness of the man's glasses.
As all matter, the human body radiates some of a person's energy away as infrared light.
The net power radiated is the difference between the power emitted and the power absorbed:

Applying the Stefan–Boltzmann law,

The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.[34][35] Skin temperature is about 33 °C,[36] but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 °C when the ambient temperature is 20 °C.[37] Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Net? That's weird. Any luck finding a source that agrees with your claim that matter above 0K stops emitting? Ever? LOL!