Easy experiment shows there is no heat gain by backradiation.

[SSDD]

Power flux is also a term you don't understand. Flux is a vector quantity. It's quite possible for the flux between the two to be near zero, but twice the total energy is still traveling.

Clearly it is you who doesn't understand...in electromagnetism...ie. radiating energy, flux is a scalar quantity.

Net effect is that wave interference cancels out

Say what? God no, wave interference doesn't work that way.

Tell that to engineers who install microwave dishes, cell towers, radio towers, etc and they will laugh in your stupid face.

 

[SSDD]

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is this, and no more.

Clearly you are just plain stupid...

SSDD pretends that the S-B law has a second term. It doesn't. He made that up.

The above equation describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...Thanks for thinking I am smart enough to have derived the equation one uses when the object is not a black body and not radiating into a vacuum...but alas, I didn't .

The S-B Law, that one term, says the only thing controlling the radiation of matter is its own temperature and emissivity. There's jack in the S-B Law about the temperature of nearby matter. Nearby matter means nothing. Matter emits according to its own temperature, period.

Poor idiot...the equation above describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...nothing more...if that were all, then the SB law couldn't be applied to anything but a perfect black body (doesn't exist) in a perfect vacuum. Apparently this is all so far over your head that you have no hope of ever catching up.

By the way...a while back I had this discussion with Ian..I took a few minutes and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

So you believe what you want hairball...but the fact is that you are wrong...always have been wrong and very likely will always be wrong...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is this, and no more.

Clearly you are just plain stupid...

SSDD pretends that the S-B law has a second term. It doesn't. He made that up.

The above equation describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...Thanks for thinking I am smart enough to have derived the equation one uses when the object is not a black body and not radiating into a vacuum...but alas, I didn't .

The S-B Law, that one term, says the only thing controlling the radiation of matter is its own temperature and emissivity. There's jack in the S-B Law about the temperature of nearby matter. Nearby matter means nothing. Matter emits according to its own temperature, period.

Poor idiot...the equation above describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...nothing more...if that were all, then the SB law couldn't be applied to anything but a perfect black body (doesn't exist) in a perfect vacuum. Apparently this is all so far over your head that you have no hope of ever catching up.

By the way...a while back I had this discussion with Ian..I took a few minutes and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

So you believe what you want hairball...but the fact is that you are wrong...always have been wrong and very likely will always be wrong...

By the way...a while back I had this discussion with Ian..I took a few minutes and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe.

Next time, ask them something useful.

Ask them if an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby.
Be sure to post their answers.

 

[mamooth]

The above equation describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...

No, shit-for-brains, it describes any body radiating, period.

You poor loser. Your fraud goes nowhere if we simply point at it and laugh. You can't do a thing except pout and scream now. Your tears of impotent rage are like a sweet nectar.

So you believe what you want hairball...but the fact is that you are wrong...always have been wrong and very likely will always be wrong...

The scientists didn't say a thing that agreed with your kook fantasy physcis. You're just pushing an even bigger fraud now.

Why not just admit you were a complete 'effin moron at the start, and kept digging deeper and deeper into the stupid hole because you were too stubborn to admit to your initial error? That's got to be better than showing everyone what an open fraud you are.

 

[SSDD]

The above equation describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...

No, shit-for-brains, it describes any body radiating, period.

Sorry hairball..it doesn't...and I bothered to ask some top shelf physicists about it for ian's benefit. I had no doubt, but like you, he operates on a belief system rather than any actual research into the topic.

You poor loser. Your fraud goes nowhere if we simply point at it and laugh. You can't do a thing except pout and scream now. Your tears of impotent rage are like a sweet nectar.

Projecting your failures at others is not going to alter how wrong you are.

The scientists didn't say a thing that agreed with your kook fantasy physcis. You're just pushing an even bigger fraud now.

Of course they did...in fact, they said exactly what I predicted they would say. To bad you suffer from such a profound reading comprehension deficit.

Why not just admit you were a complete 'effin moron at the start, and kept digging deeper and deeper into the stupid hole because you were too stubborn to admit to your initial error? That's got to be better than showing everyone what an open fraud you are.

Again...projecting isn't really helping your position.

 

[SSDD]

By the way...a while back I had this discussion with Ian..I took a few minutes and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe.

Next time, ask them something useful.

Ask them if an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby.
Be sure to post their answers.

No need to ask such a stupid question...the answer is stated right there in the equation for anyone who can read a simple equation. All I needed to do was show ian that his believe that objects radiate according to their own temperature was wrong...and I did that.

This must be very frustrating for you...to believe in something so fervently...especially a thing associated with science and not have the first piece of actual evidence in support of your belief...to be restricted to only pointing out people who believe in the same unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model as you.

It is people like you who have forgone empirical science in favor of such untestable models that have made the whole AGW scam possible....people who believe in models over reality and believe that those models represent reality have gone off the deep end.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry hairball..it doesn't...and I bothered to ask some top shelf physicists about it for ian's benefit.

And then you lied and pretended they supported your kook claims, even though we all see they didn't.

Try to understand your place in the universe, which is as a whiny fraud on the internet who provides some unintentional comic relief for the normal people. I mean, seriously, a raving imbecile like you, still pretending he's overthrown all knows physics. The unbridled narcissism, the raging Dunning-Kruger, the pathological obsessive diseased personality, it's all hilarious.

On the bright side, at least you do serve some kind of useful purpose. We all must be good for something, and you're good for amusement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By the way...a while back I had this discussion with Ian..I took a few minutes and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe.

Next time, ask them something useful.

Ask them if an object stops radiating when a warmer object is nearby.
Be sure to post their answers.

No need to ask such a stupid question...the answer is stated right there in the equation for anyone who can read a simple equation. All I needed to do was show ian that his believe that objects radiate according to their own temperature was wrong...and I did that.

This must be very frustrating for you...to believe in something so fervently...especially a thing associated with science and not have the first piece of actual evidence in support of your belief...to be restricted to only pointing out people who believe in the same unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model as you.

It is people like you who have forgone empirical science in favor of such untestable models that have made the whole AGW scam possible....people who believe in models over reality and believe that those models represent reality have gone off the deep end.

No need to ask such a stupid question...the answer is stated right there in the equation for anyone who can read a simple equation.

All you need to do is post something that agrees with,
"Matter above 0K stops emitting when near warmer matter".
But you won't, because you can't, because it doesn't.

I can post plenty of sources that say P is net energy radiated, you can't post a single one that says it is one way.

I can post plenty of sources that say objects at equilibrium radiate equally at each other, you can't post a single one that says neither radiates.

I can explain why the Sun's surface radiates toward the hotter corona, without contradicting anything I've ever claimed here. You can't without contradicting your "no back radiation" idiocy.

Your comprehensive failure is very obvious.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry hairball..it doesn't...and I bothered to ask some top shelf physicists about it for ian's benefit.

And then you lied and pretended they supported your kook claims, even though we all see they didn't.

Like I said...you are to stupid to read and comprehend...

Referring to the first equation..the equation you posted...

Dr. Mellott says: "
" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


Dr Poisson says:
" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!

The second formula being the one where T is subtracted from Tc

The first one being the same formula you posted...

Sorry hairball...but once again..you are dead wrong...why is that not surprising?

 

[SSDD]

All you need to do is post something that agrees with,
"Matter above 0K stops emitting when near warmer matter".
But you won't, because you can't, because it doesn't.

Set T and Tc to the same temperature...What does P equal...the physical law agrees with me...I don't need anything else...in order to prove your point, you are going to show a mathematical expression in the equation associated with the physical law that would allow you to derive net rather than simply assume net.

I can post plenty of sources that say P is net energy radiated, you can't post a single one that says it is one way.

Like I said...all you can post is opinions from people who, like you believe the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality...you can't post the first bit of observed, measured evidence in support of the claim that the model is correct.

I can post plenty of sources that say objects at equilibrium radiate equally at each other, you can't post a single one that says neither radiates.

Like I said...all you can post is opinions from people who, like you believe the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality...you can't post the first bit of observed, measured evidence in support of the claim that the model is correct.

Sorry guy...it must be terribly frustrating for you...but such is life when you try to replace what a physical law says with what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model says.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All you need to do is post something that agrees with,
"Matter above 0K stops emitting when near warmer matter".
But you won't, because you can't, because it doesn't.

Set T and Tc to the same temperature...What does P equal...the physical law agrees with me...I don't need anything else...in order to prove your point, you are going to show a mathematical expression in the equation associated with the physical law that would allow you to derive net rather than simply assume net.

I can post plenty of sources that say P is net energy radiated, you can't post a single one that says it is one way.

Like I said...all you can post is opinions from people who, like you believe the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality...you can't post the first bit of observed, measured evidence in support of the claim that the model is correct.

I can post plenty of sources that say objects at equilibrium radiate equally at each other, you can't post a single one that says neither radiates.

Like I said...all you can post is opinions from people who, like you believe the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality...you can't post the first bit of observed, measured evidence in support of the claim that the model is correct.

Sorry guy...it must be terribly frustrating for you...but such is life when you try to replace what a physical law says with what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model says.

Set T and Tc to the same temperature...What does P equal

P, net energy emitted, equals zero.
Planck and Einstein said at equilibrium, identical energy is emitted by both.
They disagree with your confusion, Show where their position was refuted.

P.S. your confused, solo claim, is not a refutation.

Like I said...all you can post is opinions from people who, like you believe the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable

As I said, I can post plenty of sources that say P is net, you can't post any that say it is one way.

Like I said...all you can post is opinions from people who, like you believe....

Right, I can only post Einstein, Planck, etc, while you post nothing.

Sorry guy...it must be terribly frustrating for you...

Your idiocy isn't frustrating, it's amusing. And obvious. And comprehensive.

Let me know when you can explain the Sun's radiation.
Or one way only radiation.
Or zero radiation at equilibrium.

Your failure to date is very noticeable.

 

[SSDD]

Set T and Tc to the same temperature...What does P equal

P, net energy emitted, equals zero.

Deriving net from a formula that doesn't have an expression that would allow net...you are growing very tiring...

Planck and Einstein said at equilibrium, identical energy is emitted by both.
They disagree with your confusion, Show where their position was refuted.

So they disagree...If they were here, I would ask them if they have any physical, observed, measured evidence of net energy flow..and do you know what they would say? No...they don't because none exists...They would have to agree that their position was based on unobservable, unmeasurable untestable mathematical models...Personally, I choose reality.

As I said, I can post plenty of sources that say P is net, you can't post any that say it is one way.

Yep..you can post plenty of sources that "say"...but not a single one with any physical evidence

Right, I can only post Einstein, Planck, etc, while you post nothing.

Yep...sources that "say"...at least Einstein would have the intellectual honesty to admit that he was dealing with a mathematical model.

Einstein on mathematical models: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

You seem very certain...Einstein wasn't.

Your idiocy isn't frustrating, it's amusing. And obvious. And comprehensive.

I am not the one who is unable to make my point...I am just repeating the physical law...You are the one who is trying unsuccessfully to make the law say something it doesn't...You are the one who can only point to people who you claim were as certain as you..but if you look into what they actually had to say, they realized that the were dealing in theory and hypothesis...not fact...they remain theory and hypothesis...I hold the position of physical law over your position of theory...you can't win.

Let me know when you get some observed, measured evidence to support your claim...and go visit a psychic and channel Einstein so you can as if it is reasonable to be as certain as you are about particles which remain only theoretical at this point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Set T and Tc to the same temperature...What does P equal

P, net energy emitted, equals zero.

Deriving net from a formula that doesn't have an expression that would allow net...you are growing very tiring...

Planck and Einstein said at equilibrium, identical energy is emitted by both.
They disagree with your confusion, Show where their position was refuted.

So they disagree...If they were here, I would ask them if they have any physical, observed, measured evidence of net energy flow..and do you know what they would say? No...they don't because none exists...They would have to agree that their position was based on unobservable, unmeasurable untestable mathematical models...Personally, I choose reality.

As I said, I can post plenty of sources that say P is net, you can't post any that say it is one way.

Yep..you can post plenty of sources that "say"...but not a single one with any physical evidence

Right, I can only post Einstein, Planck, etc, while you post nothing.

Yep...sources that "say"...at least Einstein would have the intellectual honesty to admit that he was dealing with a mathematical model.

Einstein on mathematical models: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

You seem very certain...Einstein wasn't.

Your idiocy isn't frustrating, it's amusing. And obvious. And comprehensive.

I am not the one who is unable to make my point...I am just repeating the physical law...You are the one who is trying unsuccessfully to make the law say something it doesn't...You are the one who can only point to people who you claim were as certain as you..but if you look into what they actually had to say, they realized that the were dealing in theory and hypothesis...not fact...they remain theory and hypothesis...I hold the position of physical law over your position of theory...you can't win.

Let me know when you get some observed, measured evidence to support your claim...and go visit a psychic and channel Einstein so you can as if it is reasonable to be as certain as you are about particles which remain only theoretical at this point.

Deriving net from a formula that doesn't have an expression that would allow net...you are growing very tiring...

Heat Radiation
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Calculation

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Weird, they say P = net radiated power. Still waiting for your source that backs up your one way radiation.
And one that backs up your zero radiation at equilibrium.

Come on......provide a source already.


So they disagree...If they were here, I would ask them if they have any physical, observed, measured evidence of net energy flow..and do you know what they would say?

They would say, "Stop bothering us, you silly moron"

Yep..you can post plenty of sources that "say"...but not a single one with any physical evidence

I get it, your non-existent sources are correct, while my real ones are wrong.
Do the voices in your head all agree with your claims, or is there disagreement?

You seem very certain...Einstein wasn't.

I'm certain that when Einstein and Planck are on one side and you're the only one on the other side, you're wrong.

I am not the one who is unable to make my point...I am just repeating the physical law...

You are unable to show that your unique interpretation of the physical law has a basis in reality.

Let me know when you get some observed, measured evidence to support your claim...

Right back at you. Show me some observed, measured evidence that the Sun's cooler surface cannot radiate toward the Sun's hotter corona.

Between that and your proof that Einstein and Planck are wrong, the Nobel is yours.
Come on, do it, then you'll be able to refute Michael Mann from a position of authority.

 

[SSDD]

Heat Radiation
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Calculation

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Weird, they say P = net radiated power. Still waiting for your source that backs up your one way radiation.
And one that backs up your zero radiation at equilibrium.

Come on......provide a source already.

You provided my source above...where is the expession in that equation that would allow you to derive net? Wishing it was an equation that derived net doesn't make it so...providing references from people who also assume that it means net also doesn't make it so...that equation says that the amount of radiation (P) coming from the radiator is equal to its emissivity X the SB constant X it area X (the difference between the temperatures of the object and its surroundings)...and that is all it says. There is nothing mentioning any amount of energy received from the cooler surroundings...assuming net is just that...an assumption. The physical law says what it says. Let me know when it is changed to reflect net...till then, you, and all your references are assuming net based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica model that the physical law doesn't reference.

They would say, "Stop bothering us, you silly moron"

Actually, they would answer the question much as all the other top shelf physicists that I have asked radiation questions of...people of faith are the ones who get testy, and resort to name calling and appeals to authority when their dogma is questioned...

I get it, your non-existent sources are correct, while my real ones are wrong.
Do the voices in your head all agree with your claims, or is there disagreement?

My only source is the physical law itself...I need no other. The fact that you can't reference the physical law as it is written and make your argument based on what it says should clue you in..but it doesn't...there is no expression there that would allow you to derive net...and I see no post script that says it is OK to assume net.

I'm certain that when Einstein and Planck are on one side and you're the only one on the other side, you're wrong.

Again..you are operating from a position of belief...Einstein never lost sight of the fact that he was positing theory...you seem to be under the impression that QM is engraved in stone and has all been proven and is stated as physical law...it isn't, nor will it ever be in its present form. You are a believer..you have no physical evidence in support of your position while the SB law as I am stating it will accurately predict the amount of radiation an object is radiating till the cows come home....dead on every time.

You are unable to show that your unique interpretation of the physical law has a basis in reality.

Of course I can...that is how it got to be a physical law instead of a theory...it accurately predicts temperature, emissivity, amount of radiation, or the temperature of its surroundings every time...spot on. Why else do you think it achieved the status of physical law?

Right back at you. Show me some observed, measured evidence that the Sun's cooler surface cannot radiate toward the Sun's hotter corona.

All been explained..you have even been provided with articles on the subject...maybe you can't read at that level, maybe you can't see the words through your blinders, maybe you, like all believers deny whatever questions you belief...who knows but you...the fact that you didn't like the explanation you were given is not my concern.

Between that and your proof that Einstein and Planck are wrong, the Nobel is yours.

The credit goes to S-B...I am just stating what their equations say. But thanks anyway. And at this point, the work of Einstein and Planck remains theory...the work of SB is physical law...you seem to have a disconnect there in your understanding of the difference.

Come on, do it, then you'll be able to refute Michael Mann from a position of authority.

One does not even need authority to refute michael man...but it is interesting to note that you apparently have such respect for him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Heat Radiation
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

Calculation

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Weird, they say P = net radiated power. Still waiting for your source that backs up your one way radiation.
And one that backs up your zero radiation at equilibrium.

Come on......provide a source already.

You provided my source above...where is the expession in that equation that would allow you to derive net? Wishing it was an equation that derived net doesn't make it so...providing references from people who also assume that it means net also doesn't make it so...that equation says that the amount of radiation (P) coming from the radiator is equal to its emissivity X the SB constant X it area X (the difference between the temperatures of the object and its surroundings)...and that is all it says. There is nothing mentioning any amount of energy received from the cooler surroundings...assuming net is just that...an assumption. The physical law says what it says. Let me know when it is changed to reflect net...till then, you, and all your references are assuming net based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica model that the physical law doesn't reference.

They would say, "Stop bothering us, you silly moron"

Actually, they would answer the question much as all the other top shelf physicists that I have asked radiation questions of...people of faith are the ones who get testy, and resort to name calling and appeals to authority when their dogma is questioned...

I get it, your non-existent sources are correct, while my real ones are wrong.
Do the voices in your head all agree with your claims, or is there disagreement?

My only source is the physical law itself...I need no other. The fact that you can't reference the physical law as it is written and make your argument based on what it says should clue you in..but it doesn't...there is no expression there that would allow you to derive net...and I see no post script that says it is OK to assume net.

I'm certain that when Einstein and Planck are on one side and you're the only one on the other side, you're wrong.

Again..you are operating from a position of belief...Einstein never lost sight of the fact that he was positing theory...you seem to be under the impression that QM is engraved in stone and has all been proven and is stated as physical law...it isn't, nor will it ever be in its present form. You are a believer..you have no physical evidence in support of your position while the SB law as I am stating it will accurately predict the amount of radiation an object is radiating till the cows come home....dead on every time.

You are unable to show that your unique interpretation of the physical law has a basis in reality.

Of course I can...that is how it got to be a physical law instead of a theory...it accurately predicts temperature, emissivity, amount of radiation, or the temperature of its surroundings every time...spot on. Why else do you think it achieved the status of physical law?

Right back at you. Show me some observed, measured evidence that the Sun's cooler surface cannot radiate toward the Sun's hotter corona.

All been explained..you have even been provided with articles on the subject...maybe you can't read at that level, maybe you can't see the words through your blinders, maybe you, like all believers deny whatever questions you belief...who knows but you...the fact that you didn't like the explanation you were given is not my concern.

Between that and your proof that Einstein and Planck are wrong, the Nobel is yours.

The credit goes to S-B...I am just stating what their equations say. But thanks anyway. And at this point, the work of Einstein and Planck remains theory...the work of SB is physical law...you seem to have a disconnect there in your understanding of the difference.

Come on, do it, then you'll be able to refute Michael Mann from a position of authority.

One does not even need authority to refute michael man...but it is interesting to note that you apparently have such respect for him.

You provided my source above...where is the expession in that equation that would allow you to derive net?

When you take energy emitted minus energy absorbed, you get net.
As my source shows, P = net radiated power.

Have you provided a single source that says P = one way power radiated?
It seems like you've been asked for years to provide such a source.
You gave a list of textbooks you said agreed with your claim, but you haven't posted the excerpts that agree.
Is it because you lied? Inquiring minds want to know.

Wishing it was an equation that derived net doesn't make it so...providing references from people who also assume that it means net also doesn't make it so...

If my sources don't make it so, your complete absence of sources REALLY doesn't make it so.

My only source is the physical law itself...I need no other.

You're the only one confused about the physical law.

Again..you are operating from a position of belief...

Absolutely. I'm on one side with Planck, Einstein, Wilhelm Wien, Max J. Riedl, Gustav Robert Kirchhoff and Roy Spencer. I believe you're by yourself on the other side.

That must be why you can provide no source that agrees with your misinterpretation of the physical law.

Einstein never lost sight of the fact that he was positing theory...

Yup. Einstein positing theory versus you positing theory.

Show me some observed, measured evidence that the Sun's cooler surface cannot radiate toward the Sun's hotter corona.

All been explained..you have even been provided with articles on the subject...

You have provided no article that explains the contradiction between your misinterpretation and the actual radiation we see from the Sun's surface toward the hotter corona.

Your failure to do so is glaring.
Even more so than your failure to explain the ability of CMB to travel thru our much warmer atmosphere.

The credit goes to S-B...I am just stating what their equations say.

If your unique misinterpretation were true, your publication would overturn hundreds of years of physics.
So publish. But first, send a couple of those emails asking physicists if matter stops radiating when near warmer matter.

...but it is interesting to note that you apparently have such respect for him.

He's a lying hack. So please, publish, collect your Nobel and then show him back radiation doesn't exist. LOL!

 

[SSDD]

When you take energy emitted minus energy absorbed, you get net..

And do tell...in the equation you provided, where is the expression for energy absorbed by the radiator.

Have you provided a single source that says P = one way power radiated?

Just the physical law itself..the formula describes a one way energy movement. there is no expression there describing energy absorbed by the surroundings.

It seems like you've been asked for years to provide such a source.

The physical law itself is the prime source.

You gave a list of textbooks you said agreed with your claim, but you haven't posted the excerpts that agree.

Go read them...clearly it can only help you.

If my sources don't make it so, your complete absence of sources REALLY doesn't make it so.

My source is the physical law itself...I don't need any other. So long as there is no expression there from which you can derive net...My position remains unchallenged...let me know when the law is changed and the associated equations are changed.

You're the only one confused about the physical law.

Sorry...but you are the one who keeps claiming net and can't seem to show any expression in the equation describing energy absorbed by the radiator...

Absolutely. I'm on one side with Planck, Einstein, Wilhelm Wien, Max J. Riedl, Gustav Robert Kirchhoff and Roy Spencer. I believe you're by yourself on the other side.

And still the physical law supports me.

Yup. Einstein positing theory versus you positing theory.

Nope..I am just stating the physical law...no theory involved...and yo don't seem to be able to point to any error I have made in stating what the equations say...you just don't like what they say.

If your unique misinterpretation were true, your publication would overturn hundreds of years of physics.

Those who are adherents to post modern science that believes models over reality don't care, and those who don't wouldn't be surprised in the least...

So publish. But first, send a couple of those emails asking physicists if matter stops radiating when near warmer matter.

Publish what? A physical law....sorry, it's already been published and thus far, it hasn't been overturned.

He's a lying hack. So please, publish, collect your Nobel and then show him back radiation doesn't exist. LOL!

Again, the publishing and the testing and the testing and the testing has already been done...and it is now a physical law...there is nothing to publish....

Tell you what...this has all grown terribly boring as do all attempts at conversation with you do...so either you point out the specific expression in the equation you provided from which you can derive net...and the expression that describes the amount of energy the radiator is absorbing from its surroundings or it is back on ignore for you...going on and on with you not being able to do more than refer me to people who believe the same thing as you when the physical law says something different is pointless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you take energy emitted minus energy absorbed, you get net..

And do tell...in the equation you provided, where is the expression for energy absorbed by the radiator.

Have you provided a single source that says P = one way power radiated?

Just the physical law itself..the formula describes a one way energy movement. there is no expression there describing energy absorbed by the surroundings.

It seems like you've been asked for years to provide such a source.

The physical law itself is the prime source.

You gave a list of textbooks you said agreed with your claim, but you haven't posted the excerpts that agree.

Go read them...clearly it can only help you.

If my sources don't make it so, your complete absence of sources REALLY doesn't make it so.

My source is the physical law itself...I don't need any other. So long as there is no expression there from which you can derive net...My position remains unchallenged...let me know when the law is changed and the associated equations are changed.

You're the only one confused about the physical law.

Sorry...but you are the one who keeps claiming net and can't seem to show any expression in the equation describing energy absorbed by the radiator...

Absolutely. I'm on one side with Planck, Einstein, Wilhelm Wien, Max J. Riedl, Gustav Robert Kirchhoff and Roy Spencer. I believe you're by yourself on the other side.

And still the physical law supports me.

Yup. Einstein positing theory versus you positing theory.

Nope..I am just stating the physical law...no theory involved...and yo don't seem to be able to point to any error I have made in stating what the equations say...you just don't like what they say.

If your unique misinterpretation were true, your publication would overturn hundreds of years of physics.

Those who are adherents to post modern science that believes models over reality don't care, and those who don't wouldn't be surprised in the least...

So publish. But first, send a couple of those emails asking physicists if matter stops radiating when near warmer matter.

Publish what? A physical law....sorry, it's already been published and thus far, it hasn't been overturned.

He's a lying hack. So please, publish, collect your Nobel and then show him back radiation doesn't exist. LOL!

Again, the publishing and the testing and the testing and the testing has already been done...and it is now a physical law...there is nothing to publish....

Tell you what...this has all grown terribly boring as do all attempts at conversation with you do...so either you point out the specific expression in the equation you provided from which you can derive net...and the expression that describes the amount of energy the radiator is absorbing from its surroundings or it is back on ignore for you...going on and on with you not being able to do more than refer me to people who believe the same thing as you when the physical law says something different is pointless.

And do tell...in the equation you provided, where is the expression for energy absorbed by the radiator.

Calculation

P is clearly defined as net.
Feel free to provide a similar source that backs up your misinterpretation.

Or not.
Your failure to date is very clear.

Just the physical law itself..the formula describes a one way energy movement

That's your interpretation. Is it lonely being the only person with that viewpoint?

The physical law itself is the prime source.

Yes, we've all noticed your lack of any backup from anyone, anywhere.
I can provide many other sources that say net, you provide none that say one way.
Except your lone misinterpretation, of course.

My source is the physical law itself...I don't need any other.

Which is convenient since there are no other. LOL!

Those who are adherents to post modern science that believes models over reality don't care

Reality, the Sun, for instance, is also against your solo misinterpretation.

Publish what? A physical law....sorry, it's already been published and thus far, it hasn't been overturned.

Publish your claim that Einstein, Planck et al are wrong and that you're the only one who has noticed.
Unless you can provide proof that others noticed their errors concerning equilibrium.

Of course you have no sources for that either. Because it's just you. All alone. All wrong.

Again, the publishing and the testing and the testing and the testing has already been done...and it is now a physical law...there is nothing to publish....

It was a law before Einstein and Planck yet you're the only one who said they were wrong about the law.
You...all alone...versus Einstein and Planck. Pretty cool! Pretty funny.

Tell you what...this has all grown terribly boring

I agree. Your failure to explain why the Sun can emit toward the hotter corona is boring.
Your claim that your misinterpretation disproves Einstein and Planck is boring.
Your complete failure to provide a single reputable source that backs your claim is boring.

 

[IanC]

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is this, and no more.

Clearly you are just plain stupid...

SSDD pretends that the S-B law has a second term. It doesn't. He made that up.

The above equation describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...Thanks for thinking I am smart enough to have derived the equation one uses when the object is not a black body and not radiating into a vacuum...but alas, I didn't .

The S-B Law, that one term, says the only thing controlling the radiation of matter is its own temperature and emissivity. There's jack in the S-B Law about the temperature of nearby matter. Nearby matter means nothing. Matter emits according to its own temperature, period.

Poor idiot...the equation above describes a black body radiating into a vacuum...nothing more...if that were all, then the SB law couldn't be applied to anything but a perfect black body (doesn't exist) in a perfect vacuum. Apparently this is all so far over your head that you have no hope of ever catching up.

By the way...a while back I had this discussion with Ian..I took a few minutes and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

So you believe what you want hairball...but the fact is that you are wrong...always have been wrong and very likely will always be wrong...

The first S-B equation is for a single object, with no interaction with outside influences.

Power = emmisivity x constant x Area x T^4

Every object radiates according to its temperature (to the fourth power), all the time.

If you add a second object then the complexities escalate dramatically. It is then P1 - P2 = Pnet

We have to compute the power of each object individually. Why? Because the emissivity is different for each object.

The next problem is Area. Does one object enclose the other? Or are they discreet objects embedded in an environment which could in fact be considered a third object. Two spheres radiating at each other have varying amounts of radiation going towards the other depending on distance and angle, even though both are still emitting P = A x e x k x T^4. The net power being exchanged between them is dependent on angle, distance, and the line-of-sight area between them.

The traditional writing of the second S-B law as P=Aek(T^4-Tc^4) is ultra simplified to emphasize the basic underlying factors. There is much more to the actual calculations.

But SSDD won't even accept that individual components of the energy transfers must be tallied up and a net value found.

 

[IanC]

No comment from SSDD on the topological or emissivity complexities involved with using the S-B laws?

Even his use of the term 'vacuum' is faulty. A vacuum may have any quantity of radiation moving through it.

 

[SSDD]

And still not the first observation, or measurement of net energy exchange...every observation and measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement. Interesting....to be so sure when not the first piece of actual evidence exists...when all you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...pure faith...no evidence. Let me know when you get some evidence.