Unnecessary detail. The disagreement is fundamental about the behavior of light. We don't need to talk about "EM fields".
Of course you do but do feel free to describe the law of physics that says that IR may behave independently from EM fields.
I say that some of the light from the cooler star A must reach the warmer star B and be absorbed, thus representing a flow of energy from star A to star B.
Of course you do. You can say it till you are blue in the face but it will not make it true. Describe the law of physics that allows heat to move spontaneously from cool to warm. I note that you are big on "saying" but damned short on proof.
You say this is impossible. What you haven't made clear is why this is impossible.
I have made it perfectly clear. It is not my fault that the math is way over your head. Now again, describe which law of physics supports your claim. The 2nd law of thermodynamics makes it perfectly clear that what you clam can not happen. Upon which law of physics do you claim that it can happen? Please be specific.
“
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
I will try and explain in more simple terms why light from the cooler star will not be absorbed by the warmer star. My explanation will hinge on the three following laws of nature.
1. The Law of Conservation of energy - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Energy may only move from warm to cool.
3. The Stephan-Boltzmann Law - Objects that absorb energy will increase in temperature and radiate all the energy that was absorbed.
Rather than try and make an example with stars, lets keep the same principles but move a bit closer to home. Lets look at lightbulbs.
Lets start with a light bulb. Lets make it one of the clear ones so that we can see what is going on and not have to deal with the effect of frosted glass. OK, our light is turned off but you can see the filament inside the bulb because the background light in the room is shining on it. Now according to you, if you turn on the lightbulb, the background light in the room will still be shining on the filament and as such, the filament will be absorbing some amount of the background light.
Sorry guy, but it isn't happening. If it were, you would have a violation of both the Law of Conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because you have the cooler background light of the room being absorbed by the very hot filament in the light bulb.
If the lightbulb were to absorb any of the background light from the room, then the filament would have to, in turn, heat up and radiate more energy according to the Stefan-Boltzman Law. Now watch closely because here is where your argument falls apart.
If the filament absorbs light from the room it will heat up and radiates more energy, which would make the light in the room become brighter
which, in turn, would cause the light bulb to absorb more light from the room and as a result, burn brighter, which would cause the light in the room to become brighter which would cause the lightbulb to absorb more light from the room and burn brighter, which would make the light in the room brighter which would cause the lightbulb to absorb more energy and burn brighter which would cause the room to be brighter which would cause the light bulb to absorb more light from the room and burn brighter which would cause the light in the room to be brighter which would cause the light bulb to absorb more energy and burn brighter which would cause the room to be brighter.... Do you see where this is going? If the warmer object can absorb energy from the cooler object, you make the warmer object even warmer which will in turn warm up the cooler object which then warms the warmer object which then warms the cooler object and you end up in a perpetual, ever growing loop moving towards infinity.
This is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy because clearly, energy has been created. The light bulb would be putting out more energy than it was receiving from its light socket. Left on long enough, the filament of the light bulb would increase to infinity and put out an infinite amount of light. Do you really not see a problem with claiming that the less lightbulb can absorb light from the less bright (cooler) backround light of the room? It would work the same way with stars. Your claim requires that energy be created and you can not create energy.
The laws of nature are all tied to each other. You can't violate just one. When you violate one, violations of others soon follow.
