Does SSDD have a point that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to radiative heat transfer

[Wuwei]

And for all that...the second law still says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...never been observed...never been measured...never will because it doesn't happen...ever.

I see you actually disagree with the great Nobel prize winners in science. One might think you have a lot of hubris, but I don't think so. I think either you are a troll, or Todd is right, you can't admit it because you staked your ego on it.

As does the second law of thermodynamics....if they had it right..why does the second law disagree with them? Evidently they never managed to demonstrate, or record energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer one...let me know when it actually happens and is recorded...and the law is changed as a result.

Is that the best argument you have? That is total nonsense to think you know more than all the most eminent physicists. You really are a troll.

 

[Wuwei]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat 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.

It's Thermal Energy, troll. Look at the pictures at the site you quoted. Troll.
That site says Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator.

 

[Crick]

Do you have a record of matter throttling its emissions? Aiming its emissions?

Are you saying that all those physics bigwigs were wrong and that you're right? That you know better?

Or let me guess: They've all agreed amongst themselves to tell the same lie in order to get their greedy fists on all that grant money? Right?

 

[SSDD]

And for all that...the second law still says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...never been observed...never been measured...never will because it doesn't happen...ever.

I see you actually disagree with the great Nobel prize winners in science. One might think you have a lot of hubris, but I don't think so. I think either you are a troll, or Todd is right, you can't admit it because you staked your ego on it.

As does the second law of thermodynamics....if they had it right..why does the second law disagree with them? Evidently they never managed to demonstrate, or record energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer one...let me know when it actually happens and is recorded...and the law is changed as a result.

Is that the best argument you have? That is total nonsense to think you know more than all the most eminent physicists. You really are a troll.

Anyone who has been paying attention....anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of history...anyone who has even the smallest ability to put history into context knows exactly how often the most "eminent" of any branch of science...including physics have been wrong..

that and the fact that the second law of thermodynamics has not been changed in the least by the proclamations of all these "eminent" physicists..

 

[SSDD]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat 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.

It's Thermal Energy, troll. Look at the pictures at the site you quoted. Troll.
That site says Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator.

The second law doesn't apply to only certain sorts of energy transfer...the second law applies to all energy movement...and it remains clear that you can't even read a simple sentence and understand what it says...first, it says energy....not thermal energy...and it says that because ENERGY won't flow spontaneously from cool to warm, it is not possible to have a perfect refrigerator...it isn't possible to have all sorts of things because ENERGY won't flow spontaneously from cool to warm...the statement isn't saying that there are special refrigerator physics...

 

[SSDD]

Do you have a record of matter throttling its emissions? Aiming its emissions?

Are you saying that all those physics bigwigs were wrong and that you're right? That you know better?

Or let me guess: They've all agreed amongst themselves to tell the same lie in order to get their greedy fists on all that grant money? Right?

What I have is the evidence that with all our technology, no measurement of spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm has ever been observed...just as the second law states and predicts.

 

[Wuwei]

Anyone who has been paying attention....anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of history...anyone who has even the smallest ability to put history into context knows exactly how often the most "eminent" of any branch of science...including physics have been wrong..

that and the fact that the second law of thermodynamics has not been changed in the least by the proclamations of all these "eminent" physicists..

Of course everything you say above is true. What you don't realize is that you are choosing your misunderstanding of the second law from a Georgia University site, and holding that against the entire scientific world. No the second law has not been changed by any scientist, but you have changed it by the faulty understanding of one word.

 

[Wuwei]

The second law doesn't apply to only certain sorts of energy transfer...the second law applies to all energy movement...and it remains clear that you can't even read a simple sentence and understand what it says...first, it says energy....not thermal energy...and it says that because ENERGY won't flow spontaneously from cool to warm, it is not possible to have a perfect refrigerator...it isn't possible to have all sorts of things because ENERGY won't flow spontaneously from cool to warm...the statement isn't saying that there are special refrigerator physics...

You seem to get your physics knowledge from one section of a site that obviously is using the word energy in a certain context - refrigerators. Then you try to extrapolate that to all of radiation exchange. The eminent Nobel prize winners and all other scientists over the last 100 years easily clarify that. Your theory of one way radiation violates the laws of physics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
The references say you are wrong. Do you disbelieve all the famous physicists in these references? Max Planck? Einstein? Wilhelm Wien? Gustav Kirchhoff?

And for all that...the second law still says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...never been observed...never been measured...never will because it doesn't happen...ever.

And for all that...the second law still says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...

And for all that, none of those references violates the second law.
Why do you keep confusing radiation with heat?
Is it because you're stupid?
Or do you realize the idiocy of your original claim but just can't admit it?

Why do you keep excluding energy...If you have a problem with the word...take it up with the physics department at Georgia State...

I repeat...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat 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.

Yeah, one poorly worded source means your claim that "matter knows the temperature of all other matter in the universe at all times" must be true and all those real scientists in Wuwei's post are wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up.

DERP!

 

[Wuwei]

Yeah, one poorly worded source means your claim that "matter knows the temperature of all other matter in the universe at all times" must be true and all those real scientists in Wuwei's post are wrong.

You are right that the source is poorly worded for those who don't understand physics, such as SSDD and his minions. But it is quite obvious in the context of the full discussion is that it is about heat energy of a refrigerator. I would think that you wouldn't have to have a full grasp of physics to understand what that site is saying, but SSDD and his minions have proven me wrong.

 

[Wuwei]

What I have is the evidence that with all our technology, no measurement of spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm has ever been observed...just as the second law states and predicts.

The clearest counterexample is the cosmic microwave background at 2.7K hitting the antenna and detector in the original experiment by Penzias and Wilson. First the CMB had to hit an antenna at 300K and then reflect to a detector at 4K. Both the reflector and detector were warmer than the CMB source.

Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia

They removed the effects of radar and radio broadcasting, and suppressed interference from the heat in the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium to −269 °C, only 4 K above absolute zero.​

There is no question that is a measurable, repeatable, observable example of cold radiation moving to a warmer detector and an even warmer reflector.

 

[there4eyeM]

Do I understand correctly? Is someone is saying that if an electrical outlet is colder than an electric heater, current will no go to the heater and give off heat?

 

[SSDD]

Anyone who has been paying attention....anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of history...anyone who has even the smallest ability to put history into context knows exactly how often the most "eminent" of any branch of science...including physics have been wrong..

that and the fact that the second law of thermodynamics has not been changed in the least by the proclamations of all these "eminent" physicists..

Of course everything you say above is true. What you don't realize is that you are choosing your misunderstanding of the second law from a Georgia University site, and holding that against the entire scientific world. No the second law has not been changed by any scientist, but you have changed it by the faulty understanding of one word.

Since they agree with the second law, why should I look anywhere else....The only reason I post from their statement is that they are a top shelf physics department....and my understanding of the word isn't faulty...the fault lies in you wanting to use another word that isn't there...

 

[SSDD]

The second law doesn't apply to only certain sorts of energy transfer...the second law applies to all energy movement...and it remains clear that you can't even read a simple sentence and understand what it says...first, it says energy....not thermal energy...and it says that because ENERGY won't flow spontaneously from cool to warm, it is not possible to have a perfect refrigerator...it isn't possible to have all sorts of things because ENERGY won't flow spontaneously from cool to warm...the statement isn't saying that there are special refrigerator physics...

You seem to get your physics knowledge from one section of a site that obviously is using the word energy in a certain context - refrigerators. Then you try to extrapolate that to all of radiation exchange. The eminent Nobel prize winners and all other scientists over the last 100 years easily clarify that. Your theory of one way radiation violates the laws of physics.

You think there is a special branch of physics and energy transfer for refrigerators?....

Don't tell me...let me guess...you do...

And an appeal to an authority who does not agree with the statement of the second LAW of thermodynamics is hardly giving you much credibility.

 

[SSDD]

What I have is the evidence that with all our technology, no measurement of spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm has ever been observed...just as the second law states and predicts.

The clearest counterexample is the cosmic microwave background at 2.7K hitting the antenna and detector in the original experiment by Penzias and Wilson. First the CMB had to hit an antenna at 300K and then reflect to a detector at 4K. Both the reflector and detector were warmer than the CMB source.

Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia

They removed the effects of radar and radio broadcasting, and suppressed interference from the heat in the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium to −269 °C, only 4 K above absolute zero.​

There is no question that is a measurable, repeatable, observable example of cold radiation moving to a warmer detector and an even warmer reflector.

Yeah...I have heard it...you don't seem to grasp the difference between IR and resonance radio frequencies...a resonance radio frequency was what was measured...not IR...the fact that you can't separate the two is not my problem.

 

[SSDD]

Do I understand correctly? Is someone is saying that if an electrical outlet is colder than an electric heater, current will no go to the heater and give off heat?

No..but you wackos come up with all sorts of crazy interpretations... Energy doesn't move SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm...there is hardly anything spontaneous about the energy that moves through a wall outlet.

 

[Wuwei]

Do I understand correctly? Is someone is saying that if an electrical outlet is colder than an electric heater, current will no go to the heater and give off heat?

You got it. SSDD is taking out of context and very broadly interpreting, "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."
Your example of an outlet is about as goofy as SSDD.

 

[Wuwei]

Since they agree with the second law, why should I look anywhere else....The only reason I post from their statement is that they are a top shelf physics department....and my understanding of the word isn't faulty...the fault lies in you wanting to use another word that isn't there...

I know your reason for posting that: ego, fear of being wrong, etc.
So you take a discussion about refrigerators out of context to misinterpret it concerning radiation physics.

 

[there4eyeM]

Do I understand correctly? Is someone is saying that if an electrical outlet is colder than an electric heater, current will no go to the heater and give off heat?

You got it. SSDD is taking out of context and very broadly interpreting, "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."
Your example of an outlet is about as goofy as SSDD.

You understand why I wasn't sure I understood. That seems to be a patently untenable contention.

 

[Wuwei]

And an appeal to an authority who does not agree with the statement of the second LAW of thermodynamics is hardly giving you much credibility.

Naw. The Nobel prize winners don't agree with your out-of-context misinterpretation.

Yeah...I have heard it...you don't seem to grasp the difference between IR and resonance radio frequencies...a resonance radio frequency was what was measured...not IR...the fact that you can't separate the two is not my problem.

There was NO resonance involved in the experiment by Penzias and Wilson. They directly measured the CMB using a radiometer - a device for measuring the radiant flux (power) of electromagnetic radiation. It was an instrument warmer than the source. I repeat there were no "resonance radio frequencies", (A term you made up.) If you google that phrase you made up, you will find only 8 results, and none of them refer to IR detectors.

So your statement,

...a resonance radio frequency was what was measured....not IR...​

is totally erroneous and meaningless.

So that measurement of the CMB actually was a measurable, observable, repeatable experiment illustrating that energy from a cold object can hit a warmer object.