Yes, 97%

[SSDD]

Changing your story?
An object radiating away at 200K doen't suddenly stop radiating if a 300 K object is placed nearby?

Of course I'm not...you are the only one changing my position. Maybe I should have tried to draw you a better picture...clearly you are locked so tight in your box that actual thinking isn't possible for you...Maybe I should have specified contact between the objects...after all, in climate science we are talking about an atmosphere that is in contact with the ground....As to the two objects with a 100K temperature difference...perhaps the radiation begins to move in the direction of the warmer object...but like the electrons...it never makes it to the object. The energy transfer is one way.

Look...I didn't write the law...I am not trying to interpret the law...I simply accept the law and my argument is based on the law as it is written. It is you who has a problem with a physical law and it is a problem that you will never overcome. Energy moves in one direction no matter how hard you try to make it go both ways.

potential will be added or subtracted, depending on the circuit, to give you net current.
Just as SB will show you net energy loss or gain.

Electrons are moving in one direction down that wire...not both ways. Maybe the EM field adds or subtracts and ends with the energy moving, albeit diminished in the direction of the cooler object. I couldn't say. What I can say, and the law backs me up is that the energy is moving in only one direction. If it were in two directions the equations would be written in a way that describes two way movement.

 

[SSDD]

Obviously it is mathematically sound to use the distributive rule. That is enough.[/qipte]

If all you are concerned with is the answer at the end, of course you can use it...the question is why would you use it. Look at this equation...

and give me a mathematically and scientifically sound reason to apply the distributive property....of course you can, but why would you?

Scientifically it is useful to know amount of radiation going in various directions from varios sources so that you can visualize how much power is being shunted into alternate non radiative pathways. Logically it is always better to imagine and calculate as many various methods as possible to see if they all agree.

Energy transfer is only happening in one direction. The law is written using an equation that describes a one way energy transfer....that is just how it is. I didn't write the law...and I can't describe what is happening at the sub atomic level and neither can you...I am not arguing with a physical law..you are. you don't like that it describes a one way energy flow but that is what it says....live with it or prove it wrong.

energy transfer is an ongoing process involving myriads of individual events but it is still granular at small enough time periods. At any one instant of time the process may be going against the flow but statistically the vast amount of interactions will be with the flow.

So you claim...but can't even begin to prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Changing your story?
An object radiating away at 200K doen't suddenly stop radiating if a 300 K object is placed nearby?

Of course I'm not...you are the only one changing my position. Maybe I should have tried to draw you a better picture...clearly you are locked so tight in your box that actual thinking isn't possible for you...Maybe I should have specified contact between the objects...after all, in climate science we are talking about an atmosphere that is in contact with the ground....As to the two objects with a 100K temperature difference...perhaps the radiation begins to move in the direction of the warmer object...but like the electrons...it never makes it to the object. The energy transfer is one way.

Look...I didn't write the law...I am not trying to interpret the law...I simply accept the law and my argument is based on the law as it is written. It is you who has a problem with a physical law and it is a problem that you will never overcome. Energy moves in one direction no matter how hard you try to make it go both ways.

potential will be added or subtracted, depending on the circuit, to give you net current.
Just as SB will show you net energy loss or gain.

Electrons are moving in one direction down that wire...not both ways. Maybe the EM field adds or subtracts and ends with the energy moving, albeit diminished in the direction of the cooler object. I couldn't say. What I can say, and the law backs me up is that the energy is moving in only one direction. If it were in two directions the equations would be written in a way that describes two way movement.

As to the two objects with a 100K temperature difference...perhaps the radiation begins to move in the direction of the warmer object...but like the electrons...it never makes it to the object. The energy transfer is one way.

Of course, the smart waves see that they're moving toward a warmer object and reverse direction.
Why didn't I think of that?
That's so much more logical than all objects radiating all the time and the net transfer of energy a matter of simple addition.

 

[SSDD]

Of course, the smart waves see that they're moving toward a warmer object and reverse direction.

Like the smart electrons go part way down the wire and then come back because there is more electricity coming from the other direction...you really are a sad case toddster...

Why didn't I think of that?
That's so much more logical than all objects radiating all the time and the net transfer of energy a matter of simple addition.

Too bad you can't ask SB....they wrote the law that says that energy moves in one direction only...no matter how many stupid questions you think up...or how many smart assed insinuations you make regarding my intelligence...the fact will remain that the law is written so that it expresses a one way energy flow...if you have a problem with that...or are so restricted in your thinking that you can't possibly picture yourself being wrong even though you are arguing against a physical law, then take it up with someone who can get the law changed as soon as you prove that energy moves both ways at the same time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course, the smart waves see that they're moving toward a warmer object and reverse direction.

Like the smart electrons go part way down the wire and then come back because there is more electricity coming from the other direction...you really are a sad case toddster...

Why didn't I think of that?
That's so much more logical than all objects radiating all the time and the net transfer of energy a matter of simple addition.

Too bad you can't ask SB....they wrote the law that says that energy moves in one direction only...no matter how many stupid questions you think up...or how many smart assed insinuations you make regarding my intelligence...the fact will remain that the law is written so that it expresses a one way energy flow...if you have a problem with that...or are so restricted in your thinking that you can't possibly picture yourself being wrong even though you are arguing against a physical law, then take it up with someone who can get the law changed as soon as you prove that energy moves both ways at the same time.

Too bad you can't ask SB....they wrote the law that says that energy moves in one direction only

Too bad you can't find a textbook example which backs up your one-way, smart wave claim.

So just to clarify, a 200 K object, happily radiating away does not stop radiating when a 300 K object is placed nearby, the waves from the 200 K object simply refuse, somehow, to reach the 300 K object?
Is that your current, magical claim?
You should submit that to Science magazine, when you tell them about that whopper of an error they published in 1963.
Keep me informed as to their response.

 

[Crick]

I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation. We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.

 

[Dot Com]

just saw this proving your ocean temp increase post from a day or two ago: Global Analysis - July 2014 State of the Climate National Climatic Data Center NCDC

The average temperature across the world's land and ocean surfaces during July 2014 was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average, the fourth highest for July on record.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation. We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.

He hasn't, because he can't.
But he'll keep trying to change the topic to batteries in a circuit.

 

[SSDD]

Too bad you can't find a textbook example which backs up your one-way, smart wave claim.

Funny thing about textbooks...they assume that you have some basic grasp of the material...and then expand on it. Otherwise all textbooks would be tens of thousands of pages long. Any textbook discussing thermodynamics...and the SB law, will necessarily assume that you have some grasp of physics...and in turn assume that you would know that this equation....

describes a one way energy flow....

So just to clarify, a 200 K object, happily radiating away does not stop radiating when a 300 K object is placed nearby, the waves from the 200 K object simply refuse, somehow, to reach the 300 K object?

Like I have said before...I don't know what is happening other than that the LAW, and every observation ever made tell us that energy moves in one direction...from warm to cool. Science is still a long way from looking far enough, and clearly enough into that level of the universe to actually know. Today, the law says that energy moves in one direction...till it is rewritten, that is what I will stick with. As to objects refusing to do something...do the electrons from the 9 volt battery refuse to move down the wire towards the 12 volt battery or can they simply not do it?

It is truly unfortunate that you are so locked in your box, that you can't use your critical thinking skills...that you can only imagine that if things aren't happening according to your beliefs, that actual thought...and disobedience must be the reason. Do you find electrons that won't go down a wire from a 9 volt battery to a 12 volt battery disobedient...and troublesome? Do you think they must be punished for their rebellion?

 

[SSDD]

I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation. We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.

You don't think a physical law expressing a one way energy transfer is sufficient authority? What is possibly more authoritative than a physical law?...backed up, I might add, by every observation ever made. How much more authority do you need? If a textbook simply said that the SB law was incorrect in it's statement that energy moves in one direction...you would buy it even with no observed evidence??...oh.....of course you would. Look at all that you already accept without any observed evidence.

 

[SSDD]

I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation. We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.

He hasn't, because he can't.
But he'll keep trying to change the topic to batteries in a circuit.

As I have pointed out repeatedly to you yahoos...the SB law itself describes a one way energy flow....how much more authority do you need? If you can't believe what a physical law, proven endlessly by every observation ever made...what can you believe? I don't know what is happening at the microscopic...and neither do you...and neither does anyone else. The fact is that the physical law describes a one way energy flow...that's good enough for me. If and when the law is rewritten, it will be because some actual evidence exists that proves the law incorrect and you can bet that evidence won't be any of the idiot tableaux that you goobers have put forward.

You will, I'm sure, let me know when the law is rewritten to describe a two way energy flow. I won't hold my breath though.

Bu the way...you still haven't explained about the smart electrons...and your attempt to claim that there is two way current flowing down one wire was just plain bullshit.

 

[Crick]

Find someone besides you saying Stefan-Boltzman describes a one-way energy flow.

You keep just saying it, but as I know you've heard before, just saying it don't make it so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Too bad you can't find a textbook example which backs up your one-way, smart wave claim.

Funny thing about textbooks...they assume that you have some basic grasp of the material...and then expand on it. Otherwise all textbooks would be tens of thousands of pages long. Any textbook discussing thermodynamics...and the SB law, will necessarily assume that you have some grasp of physics...and in turn assume that you would know that this equation....

describes a one way energy flow....

So just to clarify, a 200 K object, happily radiating away does not stop radiating when a 300 K object is placed nearby, the waves from the 200 K object simply refuse, somehow, to reach the 300 K object?

Like I have said before...I don't know what is happening other than that the LAW, and every observation ever made tell us that energy moves in one direction...from warm to cool. Science is still a long way from looking far enough, and clearly enough into that level of the universe to actually know. Today, the law says that energy moves in one direction...till it is rewritten, that is what I will stick with. As to objects refusing to do something...do the electrons from the 9 volt battery refuse to move down the wire towards the 12 volt battery or can they simply not do it?

It is truly unfortunate that you are so locked in your box, that you can't use your critical thinking skills...that you can only imagine that if things aren't happening according to your beliefs, that actual thought...and disobedience must be the reason. Do you find electrons that won't go down a wire from a 9 volt battery to a 12 volt battery disobedient...and troublesome? Do you think they must be punished for their rebellion?

Like I have said before...I don't know what is happening other than that the LAW, and every observation ever made tell us that energy moves in one direction...from warm to cool.

You might have a leg to stand on, if the SB said anything about a one-way flow. And it doesn't.
You should email your claim to Science magazine and reference their 1963 article.
I'm sure they'll be happy to admit their error.........post their response here.

As to objects refusing to do something...do the electrons from the 9 volt battery refuse to move down the wire towards the 12 volt battery or can they simply not do it?

In the circuit, the 12 volt battery "feels" the pressure from the 9 volt battery.

In your silly SB claim, the warmer object cannot "feel" the energy from the cooler object, because you said the cooler object ceases radiating. That's where your confused idea crashes on the rocks of reality.
Without that "feedback", the warmer object doesn't know how fast to radiate when the objects are first placed next to each other. As they move toward equilibrium, the warmer object does not know how much it should slow its radiating, because, as you claim, the cooler never radiates toward the warmer.

Maybe you need to come up with a better example that doesn't work against your claim?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Too bad you can't find a textbook example which backs up your one-way, smart wave claim.

Funny thing about textbooks...they assume that you have some basic grasp of the material...and then expand on it. Otherwise all textbooks would be tens of thousands of pages long. Any textbook discussing thermodynamics...and the SB law, will necessarily assume that you have some grasp of physics...and in turn assume that you would know that this equation....

describes a one way energy flow....

So just to clarify, a 200 K object, happily radiating away does not stop radiating when a 300 K object is placed nearby, the waves from the 200 K object simply refuse, somehow, to reach the 300 K object?

Like I have said before...I don't know what is happening other than that the LAW, and every observation ever made tell us that energy moves in one direction...from warm to cool. Science is still a long way from looking far enough, and clearly enough into that level of the universe to actually know. Today, the law says that energy moves in one direction...till it is rewritten, that is what I will stick with. As to objects refusing to do something...do the electrons from the 9 volt battery refuse to move down the wire towards the 12 volt battery or can they simply not do it?

It is truly unfortunate that you are so locked in your box, that you can't use your critical thinking skills...that you can only imagine that if things aren't happening according to your beliefs, that actual thought...and disobedience must be the reason. Do you find electrons that won't go down a wire from a 9 volt battery to a 12 volt battery disobedient...and troublesome? Do you think they must be punished for their rebellion?

Like I have said before...I don't know what is happening other than that the LAW, and every observation ever made tell us that energy moves in one direction...from warm to cool.

You might have a leg to stand on, if the SB said anything about a one-way flow. And it doesn't.
You should email your claim to Science magazine and reference their 1963 article.
I'm sure they'll be happy to admit their error.........post their response here.

As to objects refusing to do something...do the electrons from the 9 volt battery refuse to move down the wire towards the 12 volt battery or can they simply not do it?

In the circuit, the 12 volt battery "feels" the pressure from the 9 volt battery.

In your silly SB claim, the warmer object cannot "feel" the energy from the cooler object, because you said the cooler object ceases radiating. That's where your confused idea crashes on the rocks of reality.
Without that "feedback", the warmer object doesn't know how fast to radiate when the objects are first placed next to each other. As they move toward equilibrium, the warmer object does not know how much it should slow its radiating, because, as you claim, the cooler never radiates toward the warmer.

Maybe you need to come up with a better example that doesn't work against your claim?

I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation. We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.

You don't think a physical law expressing a one way energy transfer is sufficient authority? What is possibly more authoritative than a physical law?...backed up, I might add, by every observation ever made. How much more authority do you need? If a textbook simply said that the SB law was incorrect in it's statement that energy moves in one direction...you would buy it even with no observed evidence??...oh.....of course you would. Look at all that you already accept without any observed evidence.

You don't think a physical law expressing a one way energy transfer is sufficient authority?

I wonder how the off switch works. An object happily converting energy into infrared radiation suddenly stops, because a warmer object approaches. You must be able to find a reference to this somewhere, for such a fundamental occurence.

If a textbook simply said that the SB law was incorrect in it's statement that energy moves in one direction...you would buy it even with no observed evidence??...

Science magazine bought it, why are you afraid to tell them?

 

[Andylusion]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]
Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming

Do you realize how unscientific your post is?

The entire thrust of your post is "Survey determines truth, by opinion of responses".

You really don't grasp the massive irony?

I'm going to start my own thread entitled "Eco-Nutz replace Empirical evidence with survey results in the scientific method!" and just have a link to this thread as proof.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation. We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.

He hasn't, because he can't.
But he'll keep trying to change the topic to batteries in a circuit.

As I have pointed out repeatedly to you yahoos...the SB law itself describes a one way energy flow....how much more authority do you need? If you can't believe what a physical law, proven endlessly by every observation ever made...what can you believe? I don't know what is happening at the microscopic...and neither do you...and neither does anyone else. The fact is that the physical law describes a one way energy flow...that's good enough for me. If and when the law is rewritten, it will be because some actual evidence exists that proves the law incorrect and you can bet that evidence won't be any of the idiot tableaux that you goobers have put forward.

You will, I'm sure, let me know when the law is rewritten to describe a two way energy flow. I won't hold my breath though.

Bu the way...you still haven't explained about the smart electrons...and your attempt to claim that there is two way current flowing down one wire was just plain bullshit.

A body placed in any environment absorbs energy from the environment. The net energy absorbed by the body Q is equal to the difference between the energy absorbed by the body from the environment QA and the energy radiated by the body to the environmentQR, that is,Q = QA − QR (18.35)
^
Two way flow. LOL!


https://www.physicscurriculum.com/SampleChapters/Physics for Engineering Students Ch18.pdf

Darn it. Don't you hate it when you can't link to something that agrees with your silly claim, while the other guy posts a link that proves your claim is wrong?

 

[Crick]

Brilliant. SSDD? Do you have a response? Have you found ANY source stating that S-B describes a one-way flow? Have you found ANY source describing an ability of all matter to radiate selectively dependent on the temperature of its surroundings? Have you found ANY source stating that the SLoT says cold cannot radiate to hot? Eh?

 

[SSDD]

Find someone besides you saying Stefan-Boltzman describes a one-way energy flow.

You keep just saying it, but as I know you've heard before, just saying it don't make it so.

Who needs to? The law itself says so....this equation describes a one way energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings...

...this is what the equation would look like if it described a two way net flow between radiator and surroundings....

...unfortunately for your argument, it isn't written like that...it is written like this...

..one way. If the law itself says one way...how much more convincing do you need? Or is it true that you can;t look at the equation and simply see that it describes a one way energy transfer?

 

[SSDD]

You might have a leg to stand on, if the SB said anything about a one-way flow. And it doesn't.

Of course it does...the problem is that SB assumed that people who would be looking at their equation would have some idea of what they were looking at. this equation....

describes a one way energy flow...if you can't look at it and see the difference between that and this....

which is what it would look like if it described a two way energy flow...I am afraid that I can't help you and I doubt that you will find any textbook teaching at that level which will feel the need to explain such a basic concept to you. The equation speaks for itself...if you can't understand the language it is speaking then I am not to blame for that.

the circuit, the 12 volt battery "feels" the pressure from the 9 volt battery.

So electrons can feel, but EM fields can not? Are EM fields more sensitive than electrons?

Maybe you need to come up with a better example that doesn't work against your claim?

I don't need to come up with any examples... the LAW describes a one way energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that flow being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....you seem not to understand that I am simply going along with what the physical law says...it is you who is trying to claim that it says something else...or that something else is happening.

 

[SSDD]

I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation. We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.

He hasn't, because he can't.
But he'll keep trying to change the topic to batteries in a circuit.

As I have pointed out repeatedly to you yahoos...the SB law itself describes a one way energy flow....how much more authority do you need? If you can't believe what a physical law, proven endlessly by every observation ever made...what can you believe? I don't know what is happening at the microscopic...and neither do you...and neither does anyone else. The fact is that the physical law describes a one way energy flow...that's good enough for me. If and when the law is rewritten, it will be because some actual evidence exists that proves the law incorrect and you can bet that evidence won't be any of the idiot tableaux that you goobers have put forward.

You will, I'm sure, let me know when the law is rewritten to describe a two way energy flow. I won't hold my breath though.

Bu the way...you still haven't explained about the smart electrons...and your attempt to claim that there is two way current flowing down one wire was just plain bullshit.

A body placed in any environment absorbs energy from the environment. The net energy absorbed by the body Q is equal to the difference between the energy absorbed by the body from the environment QA and the energy radiated by the body to the environmentQR, that is,Q = QA − QR (18.35)
^
Two way flow. LOL!


https://www.physicscurriculum.com/SampleChapters/Physics for Engineering Students Ch18.pdf

Darn it. Don't you hate it when you can't link to something that agrees with your silly claim, while the other guy posts a link that proves your claim is wrong?

So you should be able to provide some observed measured examples of energy spontaneously moving from cool to warm....Lets see them

By the way...your equation describes a one way energy flow....equations that describe a two way flow require two expressions...