Yes, 97%

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

this equation describes a one way energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings.

That describes a net flow. Nowhere does it say it is a one way flow. Fail!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

the magnitude of that flow being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...

That only works if information is exchanged. In your non-emitting fantasy, the cooler surroundings warm up, but the warmer object cannot "adjust" the rate of radiating to take the temperature change into account.
Sorry, still a fail on your part.

 

[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?

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...

Lets see them

As soon as Science admits their mistake.

equations that describe a two way flow require two expressions..

the difference between the energy absorbed by the body from the environment QA and the energy radiated by the body

Too opaque for you to understand?

 

[Crick]

You have been asked repeatedly now to show any reference stating that P=epsilon sigma A (Ta^4-Tb^4) describes a one-way flow, as you have repeatedly claimed it does. You have yet to show us ANYTHING.

Why are you having such difficulties?

 

[SSDD]

That describes a net flow. Nowhere does it say it is a one way flow. Fail!

It says it as clearly as possible in the language of math. Sorry you don't understand.

 

[SSDD]

You have been asked repeatedly now to show any reference stating that P=epsilon sigma A (Ta^4-Tb^4) describes a one-way flow, as you have repeatedly claimed it does. You have yet to show us ANYTHING.

Why are you having such difficulties?

Sorry crick...seems that you are no better at math than you are at graphs...I am not going to give you an algebra lesson for dummies...if you are really interested, I am sure you can find someone who will. The equation describes a one way energy flow...I have shown you what the equation would look like if it described a two way energy flow. I didn't write the law...I can't describe what is happening at the microscopic..and neither can you or anyone else...the equation describes a one way energy flow...the authors of the law used the equation they used for a reason...I accept that the law says what it says and till observational evidence proves otherwise, I will stick with it. Was to you not being able to observe, and identify an equation that describes a one way energy transfer...and thinking that some textbook on physics is going to give you a primer lesson in algebra...can't help you.

And I have no difficulties...you, on the other hand have many...in your descriptions of my position, you have missed the mark on every single point. You are, apparently, far more stupid than even I thought you were.

 

[Crick]

You can find no reference saying ANYTHING like what you're trying to contend here because it is complete, total and utter nonsense.

And an algebra lesson from you?!?!? A lesson from someone who believes that the laws of algebra - like the Distributive Property - require the permission of an equation's author?

You're a complete and total idiot.

 

[skookerasbil]

I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......

But check out the joined date and post count of some of these oddballs. Just......a......bit......obsessed. Whats up with that? One to two thousand posts/month!!!. Ummmm.......would you call that just a bit of insecurity in one's position?

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/DOMINATION-3.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Crick]

I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......

But check out the joined date and post count of some of these oddballs. Just......a......bit......obsessed. Whats up with that? One to two thousand posts/month!!!. Ummmm.......would you call that just a bit of insecurity in one's position?

Do you agree with SSDD's interpretations of radiative heat transfer?

Do you believe the valid application of the Distributive Property requires the permission of an equation's author?

Do you believe the appropriate application of the Distributive Property alters the value of an expression?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That describes a net flow. Nowhere does it say it is a one way flow. Fail!

It says it as clearly as possible in the language of math. Sorry you don't understand.

No it doesn't. Sorry you're still clinging to your massive fail.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have been asked repeatedly now to show any reference stating that P=epsilon sigma A (Ta^4-Tb^4) describes a one-way flow, as you have repeatedly claimed it does. You have yet to show us ANYTHING.

Why are you having such difficulties?

Sorry crick...seems that you are no better at math than you are at graphs...I am not going to give you an algebra lesson for dummies...if you are really interested, I am sure you can find someone who will. The equation describes a one way energy flow...I have shown you what the equation would look like if it described a two way energy flow. I didn't write the law...I can't describe what is happening at the microscopic..and neither can you or anyone else...the equation describes a one way energy flow...the authors of the law used the equation they used for a reason...I accept that the law says what it says and till observational evidence proves otherwise, I will stick with it. Was to you not being able to observe, and identify an equation that describes a one way energy transfer...and thinking that some textbook on physics is going to give you a primer lesson in algebra...can't help you.

And I have no difficulties...you, on the other hand have many...in your descriptions of my position, you have missed the mark on every single point. You are, apparently, far more stupid than even I thought you were.

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)

^
SSDD can't read.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......

But check out the joined date and post count of some of these oddballs. Just......a......bit......obsessed. Whats up with that? One to two thousand posts/month!!!. Ummmm.......would you call that just a bit of insecurity in one's position?

When it comes to physics, SSDD is a moron.

 

[SSDD]

I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......

But check out the joined date and post count of some of these oddballs. Just......a......bit......obsessed. Whats up with that? One to two thousand posts/month!!!. Ummmm.......would you call that just a bit of insecurity in one's position?

When it comes to physics, SSDD is a moron.

And yet, the physical laws, and every observation ever made agrees with me....need proof?....look at all of the examples you haven't provided of energy spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......

But check out the joined date and post count of some of these oddballs. Just......a......bit......obsessed. Whats up with that? One to two thousand posts/month!!!. Ummmm.......would you call that just a bit of insecurity in one's position?

When it comes to physics, SSDD is a moron.

And yet, the physical laws, and every observation ever made agrees with me....need proof?....look at all of the examples you haven't provided of energy spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects.

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.
https://www.physicscurriculum.com/SampleChapters/Physics%20for%20Engineering%20Students%20Ch18.pdf

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)
^
Here are two published examples where they discuss a two-way flow.
If every single observation ever made agrees with you , you should have no problem
posting two examples that back up you claim.
They should say one way flow in them, just to be clear.
Post your proof already.

 

[SSDD]

I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......

But check out the joined date and post count of some of these oddballs. Just......a......bit......obsessed. Whats up with that? One to two thousand posts/month!!!. Ummmm.......would you call that just a bit of insecurity in one's position?

When it comes to physics, SSDD is a moron.

And yet, the physical laws, and every observation ever made agrees with me....need proof?....look at all of the examples you haven't provided of energy spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects.

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.
https://www.physicscurriculum.com/SampleChapters/Physics%20for%20Engineering%20Students%20Ch18.pdf

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)
^
Here are two published examples where they discuss a two-way flow.
If every single observation ever made agrees with you , you should have no problem
posting two examples that back up you claim.
They should say one way flow in them, just to be clear.
Post your proof already.

You keep posting that...so what? There is no two way energy flow....it is unmeasured, it is untestable, and it remains unobserved....it is an artifact...it is an ad hoc construct...it is not real...it only exists in mathematical models....It's like the dogma that rocks keeps posting claiming that it proves AGW. All you have there is evidence that the SB law is correct...that the magnitude of the EM field radiating from a radiator is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings. There is no evidence there of two way energy flow and your equation represents a one way energy exchange...not a two way flow. Your equation Q=QA -QR is a simple subtraction of EM fields...not a description of a two way net energy exchange. Sorry that you don't get this...but repeating your clip from science ad nauseum is not going to change the facts.

 

[SSDD]

You have been asked repeatedly now to show any reference stating that P=epsilon sigma A (Ta^4-Tb^4) describes a one-way flow, as you have repeatedly claimed it does. You have yet to show us ANYTHING.

Why are you having such difficulties?

Sorry crick...seems that you are no better at math than you are at graphs...I am not going to give you an algebra lesson for dummies...if you are really interested, I am sure you can find someone who will. The equation describes a one way energy flow...I have shown you what the equation would look like if it described a two way energy flow. I didn't write the law...I can't describe what is happening at the microscopic..and neither can you or anyone else...the equation describes a one way energy flow...the authors of the law used the equation they used for a reason...I accept that the law says what it says and till observational evidence proves otherwise, I will stick with it. Was to you not being able to observe, and identify an equation that describes a one way energy transfer...and thinking that some textbook on physics is going to give you a primer lesson in algebra...can't help you.

And I have no difficulties...you, on the other hand have many...in your descriptions of my position, you have missed the mark on every single point. You are, apparently, far more stupid than even I thought you were.

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)

^
SSDD can't read.

Toddster can read but he can't understand what he reads...Q=QA-QR is nothing more than a simple subtraction of EM fields....no two way flow...no unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable net flow...just a simple subtraction of two EM fields which we see and measure every day....in fact, it describes every energy exchange ever measured.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......

But check out the joined date and post count of some of these oddballs. Just......a......bit......obsessed. Whats up with that? One to two thousand posts/month!!!. Ummmm.......would you call that just a bit of insecurity in one's position?

When it comes to physics, SSDD is a moron.

And yet, the physical laws, and every observation ever made agrees with me....need proof?....look at all of the examples you haven't provided of energy spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects.

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.
https://www.physicscurriculum.com/SampleChapters/Physics%20for%20Engineering%20Students%20Ch18.pdf

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)
^
Here are two published examples where they discuss a two-way flow.
If every single observation ever made agrees with you , you should have no problem
posting two examples that back up you claim.
They should say one way flow in them, just to be clear.
Post your proof already.

You keep posting that...so what? There is no two way energy flow....it is unmeasured, it is untestable, and it remains unobserved....it is an artifact...it is an ad hoc construct...it is not real...it only exists in mathematical models....It's like the dogma that rocks keeps posting claiming that it proves AGW. All you have there is evidence that the SB law is correct...that the magnitude of the EM field radiating from a radiator is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings. There is no evidence there of two way energy flow and your equation represents a one way energy exchange...not a two way flow. Your equation Q=QA -QR is a simple subtraction of EM fields...not a description of a two way net energy exchange. Sorry that you don't get this...but repeating your clip from science ad nauseum is not going to change the facts.

You keep posting that...so what? There is no two way energy flow

I know, I keep posting sources which claim a two way flow.
You keep failing to post sources which claim a one way flow.
The fact that you misunderstand SB is not proof of one way flow.

Your equation Q=QA -QR is a simple subtraction of EM fields

Sorry, you've provided no proof of your smart wave or smart photon theory.
What are you waiting for?
Every single observation ever agrees with you. LOL!

So why aren't you posting sources which mention, prominently, one way flow?
You claim is a total fail.

 

[SSDD]

You have been asked repeatedly now to show any reference stating that P=epsilon sigma A (Ta^4-Tb^4) describes a one-way flow, as you have repeatedly claimed it does. You have yet to show us ANYTHING.

Why are you having such difficulties?

Sorry crick...seems that you are no better at math than you are at graphs...I am not going to give you an algebra lesson for dummies...if you are really interested, I am sure you can find someone who will. The equation describes a one way energy flow...I have shown you what the equation would look like if it described a two way energy flow. I didn't write the law...I can't describe what is happening at the microscopic..and neither can you or anyone else...the equation describes a one way energy flow...the authors of the law used the equation they used for a reason...I accept that the law says what it says and till observational evidence proves otherwise, I will stick with it. Was to you not being able to observe, and identify an equation that describes a one way energy transfer...and thinking that some textbook on physics is going to give you a primer lesson in algebra...can't help you.

And I have no difficulties...you, on the other hand have many...in your descriptions of my position, you have missed the mark on every single point. You are, apparently, far more stupid than even I thought you were.

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)

^
SSDD can't read.

Toddster can read but he can't understand what he reads...Q=QA-QR is nothing more than a simple subtraction of EM fields....no two way flow...no unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable net flow...just a simple subtraction of two EM fields which we see and measure every day....in fact, it describes every energy exchange ever measured.

You have yet to provide a single example of an observed measured two way energy transfer. Afraid the fail is all yours

I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......

But check out the joined date and post count of some of these oddballs. Just......a......bit......obsessed. Whats up with that? One to two thousand posts/month!!!. Ummmm.......would you call that just a bit of insecurity in one's position?

When it comes to physics, SSDD is a moron.

And yet, the physical laws, and every observation ever made agrees with me....need proof?....look at all of the examples you haven't provided of energy spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects.

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.
https://www.physicscurriculum.com/SampleChapters/Physics%20for%20Engineering%20Students%20Ch18.pdf

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)
^
Here are two published examples where they discuss a two-way flow.
If every single observation ever made agrees with you , you should have no problem
posting two examples that back up you claim.
They should say one way flow in them, just to be clear.
Post your proof already.

You keep posting that...so what? There is no two way energy flow....it is unmeasured, it is untestable, and it remains unobserved....it is an artifact...it is an ad hoc construct...it is not real...it only exists in mathematical models....It's like the dogma that rocks keeps posting claiming that it proves AGW. All you have there is evidence that the SB law is correct...that the magnitude of the EM field radiating from a radiator is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings. There is no evidence there of two way energy flow and your equation represents a one way energy exchange...not a two way flow. Your equation Q=QA -QR is a simple subtraction of EM fields...not a description of a two way net energy exchange. Sorry that you don't get this...but repeating your clip from science ad nauseum is not going to change the facts.

You keep posting that...so what? There is no two way energy flow

I know, I keep posting sources which claim a two way flow.
You keep failing to post sources which claim a one way flow.
The fact that you misunderstand SB is not proof of one way flow.

Your equation Q=QA -QR is a simple subtraction of EM fields

Sorry, you've provided no proof of your smart wave or smart photon theory.
What are you waiting for?
Every single observation ever agrees with you. LOL!

So why aren't you posting sources which mention, prominently, one way flow?
You claim is a total fail.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have been asked repeatedly now to show any reference stating that P=epsilon sigma A (Ta^4-Tb^4) describes a one-way flow, as you have repeatedly claimed it does. You have yet to show us ANYTHING.

Why are you having such difficulties?

Sorry crick...seems that you are no better at math than you are at graphs...I am not going to give you an algebra lesson for dummies...if you are really interested, I am sure you can find someone who will. The equation describes a one way energy flow...I have shown you what the equation would look like if it described a two way energy flow. I didn't write the law...I can't describe what is happening at the microscopic..and neither can you or anyone else...the equation describes a one way energy flow...the authors of the law used the equation they used for a reason...I accept that the law says what it says and till observational evidence proves otherwise, I will stick with it. Was to you not being able to observe, and identify an equation that describes a one way energy transfer...and thinking that some textbook on physics is going to give you a primer lesson in algebra...can't help you.

And I have no difficulties...you, on the other hand have many...in your descriptions of my position, you have missed the mark on every single point. You are, apparently, far more stupid than even I thought you were.

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)

^
SSDD can't read.

Toddster can read but he can't understand what he reads...Q=QA-QR is nothing more than a simple subtraction of EM fields....no two way flow...no unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable net flow...just a simple subtraction of two EM fields which we see and measure every day....in fact, it describes every energy exchange ever measured.

You have yet to provide a single example of an observed measured two way energy transfer. Afraid the fail is all yours

When it comes to physics, SSDD is a moron.

And yet, the physical laws, and every observation ever made agrees with me....need proof?....look at all of the examples you haven't provided of energy spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects.

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.
https://www.physicscurriculum.com/SampleChapters/Physics%20for%20Engineering%20Students%20Ch18.pdf

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)
^
Here are two published examples where they discuss a two-way flow.
If every single observation ever made agrees with you , you should have no problem
posting two examples that back up you claim.
They should say one way flow in them, just to be clear.
Post your proof already.

You keep posting that...so what? There is no two way energy flow....it is unmeasured, it is untestable, and it remains unobserved....it is an artifact...it is an ad hoc construct...it is not real...it only exists in mathematical models....It's like the dogma that rocks keeps posting claiming that it proves AGW. All you have there is evidence that the SB law is correct...that the magnitude of the EM field radiating from a radiator is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings. There is no evidence there of two way energy flow and your equation represents a one way energy exchange...not a two way flow. Your equation Q=QA -QR is a simple subtraction of EM fields...not a description of a two way net energy exchange. Sorry that you don't get this...but repeating your clip from science ad nauseum is not going to change the facts.

You keep posting that...so what? There is no two way energy flow

I know, I keep posting sources which claim a two way flow.
You keep failing to post sources which claim a one way flow.
The fact that you misunderstand SB is not proof of one way flow.

Your equation Q=QA -QR is a simple subtraction of EM fields

Sorry, you've provided no proof of your smart wave or smart photon theory.
What are you waiting for?
Every single observation ever agrees with you. LOL!

So why aren't you posting sources which mention, prominently, one way flow?
You claim is a total fail.

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.

Your failure to provide a source that agrees with your one way flow, smart wave/smart photon theory is noted.