No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

[IanC]

Yah, well, I am sorry that you don't understand that the single term S-B equation is describing the power radiating from a single source. There is no second term, it is irrelevant to the radiation produced by the single object. That radiation is always there, all the time.

Sorry that you seem to be unable to read...and very sorry that you fail to grasp that the only place you can have radiation coming from a single source is in an empty vacuum. Even when shown multiple credible sources stating that the first equation refers to a radiator radiating into a vacuum...you can't accept it because you can't conceive of the reality that you have misunderstood the very basics of the S-B law.

I can't help but notice that you ducked my direct question again.

What is your definition of a vacuum then? Typically it means the absence of matter. Is it now your contention that it also means absence of radiation as well? Where could this special type of vacuum be found? Certainly not in our universe. So where then?

 

[SSDD]

Yah, well, I am sorry that you don't understand that the single term S-B equation is describing the power radiating from a single source. There is no second term, it is irrelevant to the radiation produced by the single object. That radiation is always there, all the time.

Sorry that you seem to be unable to read...and very sorry that you fail to grasp that the only place you can have radiation coming from a single source is in an empty vacuum. Even when shown multiple credible sources stating that the first equation refers to a radiator radiating into a vacuum...you can't accept it because you can't conceive of the reality that you have misunderstood the very basics of the S-B law.

I can't help but notice that you ducked my direct question again.

What is your definition of a vacuum then? Typically it means the absence of matter. Is it now your contention that it also means absence of radiation as well? Where could this special type of vacuum be found? Certainly not in our universe. So where then?

I answered your question...it is unfortunate that your dogma has so thoroughly blinded you...vacuum doesn't mean an absence of radiation...and I never suggested any such thing...either deliberate dishonesty on your part or stupidity...you say which...a vacuum is, however, the only place that you might find a single object radiating...which is what I have been saying, but you are apparently to dense to understand. The presence of any other object radiating...including gas requires the second S-B equation...the only place the first is applicable is in a vacuum where no other object, including a gas, exists...and therefore doesn't demand that the second form of the equation be used.

 

[IanC]

Yah, well, I am sorry that you don't understand that the single term S-B equation is describing the power radiating from a single source. There is no second term, it is irrelevant to the radiation produced by the single object. That radiation is always there, all the time.

Sorry that you seem to be unable to read...and very sorry that you fail to grasp that the only place you can have radiation coming from a single source is in an empty vacuum. Even when shown multiple credible sources stating that the first equation refers to a radiator radiating into a vacuum...you can't accept it because you can't conceive of the reality that you have misunderstood the very basics of the S-B law.

I can't help but notice that you ducked my direct question again.

What is your definition of a vacuum then? Typically it means the absence of matter. Is it now your contention that it also means absence of radiation as well? Where could this special type of vacuum be found? Certainly not in our universe. So where then?

I answered your question...it is unfortunate that your dogma has so thoroughly blinded you...vacuum doesn't mean an absence of radiation...and I never suggested any such thing...either deliberate dishonesty on your part or stupidity...you say which...a vacuum is, however, the only place that you might find a single object radiating...which is what I have been saying, but you are apparently to dense to understand. The presence of any other object radiating...including gas requires the second S-B equation...the only place the first is applicable is in a vacuum where no other object, including a gas, exists...and therefore doesn't demand that the second form of the equation be used.

Still ducking my question? Does there exist a vacuum that fits your description? Or is it some hypothetical void where nothing exists except the object? No matter, no radiation, no gravity, nothing.

I think we are basically talking about the same thing. An object by itself, before any outside interactions are taken into account. But you insist on demanding a vacuum to be present. Actually it is more like you are trying to resurrect the aether. There is no underlying framework to the universe that everything is compared to.

 

[SSDD]

Still ducking my question? Does there exist a vacuum that fits your description? Or is it some hypothetical void where nothing exists except the object? No matter, no radiation, no gravity, nothing.

Your question is nothing more than you ducking...The SB law describes a perfect black body..which is also a theoretical construct...if you are going to imagine a perfect black body..which doesn't exist....why do you suppose you would put it anywhere other than in a perfect vacuum....You just seem to be getting more and more dense...or is it just being pissy to the extreme in your frustration over being wrong?

I think we are basically talking about the same thing.An object by itself, before any outside interactions are taken into account.

Which can only be in a perfect vacuum...

But you insist on demanding a vacuum to be present. Actually it is more like you are trying to resurrect the aether. There is no underlying framework to the universe that everything is compared to.

If the object is not alone in a perfect vacuum, then the second equation must be applied...it is as simple as that and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp this blatantly obvious concept...if any other matter is present, then the second equation form

must be used as the radiator is no longer a single object radiating according to its temperature...if any other matter is present, then it becomes a radiator radiating according to the difference in the temperature of the radiator, and the other matter present.

 

[IanC]

Still ducking my question? Does there exist a vacuum that fits your description? Or is it some hypothetical void where nothing exists except the object? No matter, no radiation, no gravity, nothing.

Your question is nothing more than you ducking...The SB law describes a perfect black body..which is also a theoretical construct...if you are going to imagine a perfect black body..which doesn't exist....why do you suppose you would put it anywhere other than in a perfect vacuum....You just seem to be getting more and more dense...or is it just being pissy to the extreme in your frustration over being wrong?

I think we are basically talking about the same thing.An object by itself, before any outside interactions are taken into account.

Which can only be in a perfect vacuum...

But you insist on demanding a vacuum to be present. Actually it is more like you are trying to resurrect the aether. There is no underlying framework to the universe that everything is compared to.

If the object is not alone in a perfect vacuum, then the second equation must be applied...it is as simple as that and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp this blatantly obvious concept...if any other matter is present, then the second equation form

must be used as the radiator is no longer a single object radiating according to its temperature...if any other matter is present, then it becomes a radiator radiating according to the difference in the temperature of the radiator, and the other matter present.

Like I said before...when things are not going well for you in the debate you start changing definitions.

Now it is a 'perfect vacuum '. Which you don't definitively define because you may need to change it again.

 

[jc456]

Still ducking my question? Does there exist a vacuum that fits your description? Or is it some hypothetical void where nothing exists except the object? No matter, no radiation, no gravity, nothing.

Your question is nothing more than you ducking...The SB law describes a perfect black body..which is also a theoretical construct...if you are going to imagine a perfect black body..which doesn't exist....why do you suppose you would put it anywhere other than in a perfect vacuum....You just seem to be getting more and more dense...or is it just being pissy to the extreme in your frustration over being wrong?

I think we are basically talking about the same thing.An object by itself, before any outside interactions are taken into account.

Which can only be in a perfect vacuum...

But you insist on demanding a vacuum to be present. Actually it is more like you are trying to resurrect the aether. There is no underlying framework to the universe that everything is compared to.

If the object is not alone in a perfect vacuum, then the second equation must be applied...it is as simple as that and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp this blatantly obvious concept...if any other matter is present, then the second equation form

must be used as the radiator is no longer a single object radiating according to its temperature...if any other matter is present, then it becomes a radiator radiating according to the difference in the temperature of the radiator, and the other matter present.

Like I said before...when things are not going well for you in the debate you start changing definitions.

Now it is a 'perfect vacuum '. Which you don't definitively define because you may need to change it again.

So curious, what is the difference between vacuum and perfect vacuum?

 

[SSDD]

Still ducking my question? Does there exist a vacuum that fits your description? Or is it some hypothetical void where nothing exists except the object? No matter, no radiation, no gravity, nothing.

Your question is nothing more than you ducking...The SB law describes a perfect black body..which is also a theoretical construct...if you are going to imagine a perfect black body..which doesn't exist....why do you suppose you would put it anywhere other than in a perfect vacuum....You just seem to be getting more and more dense...or is it just being pissy to the extreme in your frustration over being wrong?

I think we are basically talking about the same thing.An object by itself, before any outside interactions are taken into account.

Which can only be in a perfect vacuum...

But you insist on demanding a vacuum to be present. Actually it is more like you are trying to resurrect the aether. There is no underlying framework to the universe that everything is compared to.

If the object is not alone in a perfect vacuum, then the second equation must be applied...it is as simple as that and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp this blatantly obvious concept...if any other matter is present, then the second equation form

must be used as the radiator is no longer a single object radiating according to its temperature...if any other matter is present, then it becomes a radiator radiating according to the difference in the temperature of the radiator, and the other matter present.

Like I said before...when things are not going well for you in the debate you start changing definitions.

Now it is a 'perfect vacuum '. Which you don't definitively define because you may need to change it again.

It is not a matter of changing definitions...it is a matter of coming to see just how terribly flawed your basic understanding of the S-B law is.....Lets get even more basic...tell me, do you believe that the black body described by the S-B equation actually exists?....or the place where it is completely alone and therefore radiates according to its temperature?...You seem to believe that all other mathematical constructs actually exist...like back radiation, so do you believe that S-B's theoretical black body actually exists?...and the perfect vacuum he placed it in?

 

[SSDD]

Still ducking my question? Does there exist a vacuum that fits your description? Or is it some hypothetical void where nothing exists except the object? No matter, no radiation, no gravity, nothing.

Your question is nothing more than you ducking...The SB law describes a perfect black body..which is also a theoretical construct...if you are going to imagine a perfect black body..which doesn't exist....why do you suppose you would put it anywhere other than in a perfect vacuum....You just seem to be getting more and more dense...or is it just being pissy to the extreme in your frustration over being wrong?

I think we are basically talking about the same thing.An object by itself, before any outside interactions are taken into account.

Which can only be in a perfect vacuum...

But you insist on demanding a vacuum to be present. Actually it is more like you are trying to resurrect the aether. There is no underlying framework to the universe that everything is compared to.

If the object is not alone in a perfect vacuum, then the second equation must be applied...it is as simple as that and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp this blatantly obvious concept...if any other matter is present, then the second equation form

must be used as the radiator is no longer a single object radiating according to its temperature...if any other matter is present, then it becomes a radiator radiating according to the difference in the temperature of the radiator, and the other matter present.

Like I said before...when things are not going well for you in the debate you start changing definitions.

Now it is a 'perfect vacuum '. Which you don't definitively define because you may need to change it again.

So curious, what is the difference between vacuum and perfect vacuum?

He is at last coming to realize that he has been wrong all along and is just being pissy now...I am wondering if he thinks the perfect black body described in the Stefan Boltzman equations actually exists...and if he also believes the perfect vacuum that S-B placed it in also actually exists....he apparently thinks all mathematical constructs are real...like back radiation, etc.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still ducking my question? Does there exist a vacuum that fits your description? Or is it some hypothetical void where nothing exists except the object? No matter, no radiation, no gravity, nothing.

Your question is nothing more than you ducking...The SB law describes a perfect black body..which is also a theoretical construct...if you are going to imagine a perfect black body..which doesn't exist....why do you suppose you would put it anywhere other than in a perfect vacuum....You just seem to be getting more and more dense...or is it just being pissy to the extreme in your frustration over being wrong?

I think we are basically talking about the same thing.An object by itself, before any outside interactions are taken into account.

Which can only be in a perfect vacuum...

But you insist on demanding a vacuum to be present. Actually it is more like you are trying to resurrect the aether. There is no underlying framework to the universe that everything is compared to.

If the object is not alone in a perfect vacuum, then the second equation must be applied...it is as simple as that and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp this blatantly obvious concept...if any other matter is present, then the second equation form

must be used as the radiator is no longer a single object radiating according to its temperature...if any other matter is present, then it becomes a radiator radiating according to the difference in the temperature of the radiator, and the other matter present.

Like I said before...when things are not going well for you in the debate you start changing definitions.

Now it is a 'perfect vacuum '. Which you don't definitively define because you may need to change it again.

So curious, what is the difference between vacuum and perfect vacuum?

He is at last coming to realize that he has been wrong all along and is just being pissy now...I am wondering if he thinks the perfect black body described in the Stefan Boltzman equations actually exists...and if he also believes the perfect vacuum that S-B placed it in also actually exists....he apparently thinks all mathematical constructs are real...like back radiation, etc.

he apparently thinks all mathematical constructs are real...like back radiation, etc.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

 

[IanC]

Still ducking my question? Does there exist a vacuum that fits your description? Or is it some hypothetical void where nothing exists except the object? No matter, no radiation, no gravity, nothing.

Your question is nothing more than you ducking...The SB law describes a perfect black body..which is also a theoretical construct...if you are going to imagine a perfect black body..which doesn't exist....why do you suppose you would put it anywhere other than in a perfect vacuum....You just seem to be getting more and more dense...or is it just being pissy to the extreme in your frustration over being wrong?

I think we are basically talking about the same thing.An object by itself, before any outside interactions are taken into account.

Which can only be in a perfect vacuum...

But you insist on demanding a vacuum to be present. Actually it is more like you are trying to resurrect the aether. There is no underlying framework to the universe that everything is compared to.

If the object is not alone in a perfect vacuum, then the second equation must be applied...it is as simple as that and yet, you don't seem to be able to grasp this blatantly obvious concept...if any other matter is present, then the second equation form

must be used as the radiator is no longer a single object radiating according to its temperature...if any other matter is present, then it becomes a radiator radiating according to the difference in the temperature of the radiator, and the other matter present.

Like I said before...when things are not going well for you in the debate you start changing definitions.

Now it is a 'perfect vacuum '. Which you don't definitively define because you may need to change it again.

So curious, what is the difference between vacuum and perfect vacuum?

He is at last coming to realize that he has been wrong all along and is just being pissy now...I am wondering if he thinks the perfect black body described in the Stefan Boltzman equations actually exists...and if he also believes the perfect vacuum that S-B placed it in also actually exists....he apparently thinks all mathematical constructs are real...like back radiation, etc.

Excellent!! I can tell by the classical case of transference (in the psychological sense) in his sneering insult, that he is coming around at least somewhat.

I wonder if we can get him to take the next step.

The first, single term S-B equation describes the radiation from a single object. It is proportional to the object's temperature, emissivity and surface area. No more, no less, a single variable.

This single variable is a stand alone product. It is not a simplification of the more complex two term S-B equation that describes net radiation exchanged between two objects , under the special case of a perfect vacuum that is also devoid of radiation, which of course does not exist in our universe.

In fact, the two term S-B equation does not actually work for a perfect vacuum because there is no second object (matter) with a temperature (temperature is a characteristic of matter). But that is splitting hairs.

What is the two term S-B equation actually used for? Comparing two objects made of matter, with their individual amounts of radiation calculated by the one term S-B equation. The environment is assumed to be a vacuum (to remove conduction), and the background radiation is ignored because it affects both objects equally.

The radiation exchange between the two objects depends on the areas intersecting the objects, the angles of intersection and the emissivity.

There are two main topological variants of comparison. Either one object encloses the other object, or it doesn't... I think I will stop here for now.

In summation, the first S-B equation describes the amount of radiation produced by an object, proportional to its temperature. It is not being compared to anything else, a stand alone variable. The second S-B equation actually compares the radiation exchange between two objects and rapidly escalates into complex calculations that require simplifying assumptions to get any usable information at all.

 

[SSDD]

Excellent!! I can tell by the classical case of transference (in the psychological sense) in his sneering insult, that he is coming around at least somewhat.

Your eyes must surely be brown....how you lie to yourself.

The first, single term S-B equation describes the radiation from a single object. It is proportional to the object's temperature, emissivity and surface area. No more, no less, a single variable.

Brown eyes and particularly stupid....if the object is in the presence of any matter, whatsoever, the applicable equation is

. The only place the object can not be in the presence of anything to alter P is in a perfect vacuum..... how stupid to quibble over the obvious.

This single variable is a stand alone product.

Of course...in a vacuum....no where else add the presence of any matter whatsoever and you must, by definition, switch to the second equation. And there is no net energy exchange...all energy exchanges are gross one way propositions.

In fact, the two term S-B equation does not actually work for a perfect vacuum because there is no second object (matter) with a temperature (temperature is a characteristic of matter). But that is splitting hairs.

Idiot...of course it doesn't work in a vacuum because it describes a radiator in the presence of other matter....you really don't get it do you?

What is the two term S-B equation actually used for? Comparing two objects made of matter, with their individual amounts of radiation calculated by the one term S-B equation. The environment is assumed to be a vacuum (to remove conduction), and the background radiation is ignored because it affects both objects equally.

Pure bullshit...if that is your understanding, then you grasp the topic even less than I originally thought.

 

[IanC]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick

You misspelled the underlined word.

I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T

 

[SSDD]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (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 over night and will post more when and if they come.

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

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

 

[SSDD]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick

You misspelled the underlined word.

I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T

Ignorant, if it applied (which it doesn't) can be remedied...stupid...which applies to you can't.

 

[Crick]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (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 over night and will post more when and if they come.

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

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

 

[jc456]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (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 over night and will post more when and if they come.

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

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

 

[IanC]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (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 over night and will post more when and if they come.

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

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

??????

your own expert witness says that a vacuum is not necessary!

. this is your favourite version of the S-B law. so what happens when the emisivity constant for the two objects differ? then the equation must be expanded. P = kTw^4 - kTc^4. one term for each object, the power being the difference between the two terms, the direction of flow dependent on whether the number is positive or negative.

. this equation has one term and describes one object, power from a defined area (two dimensional, meter squared)

. this equatio has two terms for two objects. it describes the net movement of energy between two objects, from one object to another object through three dimensional space, if the objects are imbedded in an environment. if the second object IS the environment then no vacuum exists. Choose your poison, you are wrong either way.

 

[SSDD]

??????

your own expert witness says that a vacuum is not necessary!

How blind are you ian...vacuum is not necessary if you happen to put the radiator into a place where the temperature is 0 degrees K....Where might that be? But you believe what you want...hell, write a paper...point out that S-B's ideal black body was a two dimensional object radiating in only two dimensions....clearly you would rather make an abject fool out of yourself rather than admit that you were wrong at the fundamental level on the S-B law.

 

[Crick]

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

Do you think that supports SSDD's nonsensical contention?