No Evidence

[Toddsterpatriot]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

Actually, it says that warmer objects in the presence of cooler objects radiate according to their area, their emissivity, and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

And can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? That should be interesting to see....

and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

You have any backup for your dimmer switch theory?
Explicit backup, not your solo misinterpretation.

I don't need any..you are the one who needs some actual evidence to support your belief in spontaneous two way energy movment…

Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 2 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperature of Tc to 50 degrees...what is P?

The physical law itself supports my position and it is based on observation after observation after observation …..sorry you don't agree with physical laws...and worse, you let people convince you not to believe them without the first piece of evidence to suggest that they were wrong.

I don't need any..

How convenient, because you can't find any.

Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

P = net radiated power.

The physical law itself supports my position

Which is why you have no explicit backup.
No one who ever said, matter radiates less in proximity to other matter.
Or fails to radiate at all, near matter of the same temperature.
Even when separated by billions of light years.

Come on, you must have some college professor you could ask.
Why would they lie to you about something so basic and obvious.

Go for it!!!!

Post their response in this thread.

Which expression in that equation do you derive net from? Net has a specific meaning and requires mathematical expressions that it is derived from...which ones in that equation do you think you can derive net from? Just saying it or wishing it doesn't make it real.

Which expression in that equation do you derive net from?

The part where you subtract the power radiated by the cooler object from the power radiated by the warmer object.

It's between the open parenthesis and the close parenthesis.

 

[SSDD]

Difference: the result of the subtraction of one number, quantity, etc, from another

Net: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross)

Simple subtraction gives you a gross amount..net is an entirely different thing..It is easy to see how you guys have been so easily fooled...you don't know the first thing about anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Difference: the result of the subtraction of one number, quantity, etc, from another

Net: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross)

Simple subtraction gives you a gross amount..net is an entirely different thing..It is easy to see how you guys have been so easily fooled...you don't know the first thing about anything.

Net: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses

Power emitted minus power absorbed. Net power.

(opposed to gross)

Gross would be this number,

, for each of the individual objects.

Simple subtraction gives you a gross amount..net is an entirely different thing..

When there are only two numbers involved, simple subtraction and net are entirely the same thing.

Don't forget to post the response when you get a college professor to agree with your confusion.
You wouldn't want everyone to realize you're alone in your unique misinterpretation.

 

[SSDD]

Difference: the result of the subtraction of one number, quantity, etc, from another

Net: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross)

Simple subtraction gives you a gross amount..net is an entirely different thing..It is easy to see how you guys have been so easily fooled...you don't know the first thing about anything.

Net: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses

Power emitted minus power absorbed. Net power.

(opposed to gross)

Gross would be this number, View attachment 238319, for each of the individual objects.

Simple subtraction gives you a gross amount..net is an entirely different thing..

When there are only two numbers involved, simple subtraction and net are entirely the same thing.

Don't forget to post the response when you get a college professor to agree with your confusion.
You wouldn't want everyone to realize you're alone in your unique misinterpretation.

Sorry, but they aren't...when two numbers are involved..simple subtraction gives you the difference which is a different thing than net...if you subtract a bit from the original amount, then add a bit, then subtract a bit, and perhaps add a bit more, then you get a net value...The equation describes a gross one way energy transfer...

Try looking up a comparison between net and gross....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Difference: the result of the subtraction of one number, quantity, etc, from another

Net: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross)

Simple subtraction gives you a gross amount..net is an entirely different thing..It is easy to see how you guys have been so easily fooled...you don't know the first thing about anything.

Net: remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses

Power emitted minus power absorbed. Net power.

(opposed to gross)

Gross would be this number, View attachment 238319, for each of the individual objects.

Simple subtraction gives you a gross amount..net is an entirely different thing..

When there are only two numbers involved, simple subtraction and net are entirely the same thing.

Don't forget to post the response when you get a college professor to agree with your confusion.
You wouldn't want everyone to realize you're alone in your unique misinterpretation.

Sorry, but they aren't...when two numbers are involved..simple subtraction gives you the difference which is a different thing than net...if you subtract a bit from the original amount, then add a bit, then subtract a bit, and perhaps add a bit more, then you get a net value...The equation describes a gross one way energy transfer...

Try looking up a comparison between net and gross....

The equation describes a gross one way energy transfer...

And when you subtract the gross of one object from the gross of the other, you get net.

when two numbers are involved..simple subtraction gives you the difference which is a different thing than net..

When only two numbers are involved..simple subtraction gives you the difference which is the same as net.

 

[Wuwei]

Try looking up a comparison between net and gross...

Try looking up what thousands of scientists and textbooks say. They all say net. Nary a one says one way. Also net flow obeys the law of entropy.

 

[SSDD]

Try looking up a comparison between net and gross...

Try looking up what thousands of scientists and textbooks say. They all say net. Nary a one says one way. Also net flow obeys the law of entropy.

So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross? They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed. They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change.

 

[Wuwei]

So you are saying that thousands of scientists can't differentiate between difference and gross? They are well known mathematical terms..and their definitions have not changed. They still mean what they have always meant..and simple subtraction of two numbers gives you a gross change...not a net change

Nope I didn't say that. Try reading for comprehension.
I will make it easier for you. The thousands of scientists know the SB equation refers to two way flow between object and background. The power output of the object is the net of the emission minus the absorption.

 

[IanC]

I see SSDD is arguing the definition of words again.

Personally, I would like to see the actual definitions he is using for gross and net.

 

[SSDD]

[
Nope I didn't say that. Try reading for comprehension.
I will make it easier for you. The thousands of scientists know the SB equation refers to two way flow between object and background. The power output of the object is the net of the emission minus the absorption.

Really? How do they "know" this...clearly there is no observed, measured evidence of spontaneous two way energy flow...Upon what actual empirical evidence do you base the claim that they "know"?

And again...simple subtraction of two terms gives you a gross change...not net...calling a gross change net does not make it net...it just demonstrates that you don't know what net is.

 

[SSDD]

I see SSDD is arguing the definition of words again.

Personally, I would like to see the actual definitions he is using for gross and net.

Words have meanings...and using a word wrong in an attempt to prove a falsehood true warrants being called out. Don't you agree.

Look up the definition of gross and net in any mathematics book...as with the statements of physical laws, unlike you guys, I don't make up my own...I use, and accept what is written...

 

[jc456]

But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...and some of us know that all natural processes are irreversible....natural processes like energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....irreversible...do you know what that means?

Yes, I know what that means, but do you? Your statement, "But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium." indicates two way exchange of radiation.

And the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict...there is no physical law that predicts two way energy flow...but do feel free to name them since you believe that it violates several....this should be good,.. As always, you provide at least a chuckle.

No laws predict one-way energy flow. The law of Entropy does not forbid it during any process.
Otherwise the BB radiation law would be violated The SB law would be violated. The fact that accelerating charges must radiate would be violated. You already know that and are just being a troll now.

indicates two way exchange of radiation.

no it doesn't. what the fk?

 

[jc456]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

too funny. no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object. If the cooler object is exposed to a cooler object, it will radiate at that time. You all have lost your brains.

 

[jc456]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

Actually, it says that warmer objects in the presence of cooler objects radiate according to their area, their emissivity, and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

And can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? That should be interesting to see....

and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

You have any backup for your dimmer switch theory?
Explicit backup, not your solo misinterpretation.

I don't need any..you are the one who needs some actual evidence to support your belief in spontaneous two way energy movment…

Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 2 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperature of Tc to 50 degrees...what is P?

The physical law itself supports my position and it is based on observation after observation after observation …..sorry you don't agree with physical laws...and worse, you let people convince you not to believe them without the first piece of evidence to suggest that they were wrong.

I don't need any..

How convenient, because you can't find any.

Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

P = net radiated power.

The physical law itself supports my position

Which is why you have no explicit backup.
No one who ever said, matter radiates less in proximity to other matter.
Or fails to radiate at all, near matter of the same temperature.
Even when separated by billions of light years.

Come on, you must have some college professor you could ask.
Why would they lie to you about something so basic and obvious.

Go for it!!!!

Post their response in this thread.

are you claiming that as an object absorbs it is emitting at the same time? and that as an object is emitting it is absorbing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...and some of us know that all natural processes are irreversible....natural processes like energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....irreversible...do you know what that means?

Yes, I know what that means, but do you? Your statement, "But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium." indicates two way exchange of radiation.

And the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict...there is no physical law that predicts two way energy flow...but do feel free to name them since you believe that it violates several....this should be good,.. As always, you provide at least a chuckle.

No laws predict one-way energy flow. The law of Entropy does not forbid it during any process.
Otherwise the BB radiation law would be violated The SB law would be violated. The fact that accelerating charges must radiate would be violated. You already know that and are just being a troll now.

indicates two way exchange of radiation.

no it doesn't. what the fk?

SSDD said "But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium.."

Exchange means one-way?

 

[jc456]

But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium...and some of us know that all natural processes are irreversible....natural processes like energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....irreversible...do you know what that means?

Yes, I know what that means, but do you? Your statement, "But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium." indicates two way exchange of radiation.

And the fact of one way radiation between objects is precisely what the physical laws predict...there is no physical law that predicts two way energy flow...but do feel free to name them since you believe that it violates several....this should be good,.. As always, you provide at least a chuckle.

No laws predict one-way energy flow. The law of Entropy does not forbid it during any process.
Otherwise the BB radiation law would be violated The SB law would be violated. The fact that accelerating charges must radiate would be violated. You already know that and are just being a troll now.

indicates two way exchange of radiation.

no it doesn't. what the fk?

SSDD said "But we all know that energy exchange is the means of coming to equilibrium.."

Exchange means one-way?

why wouldn't it? If I hand you something, I have exchanged my something with you. I gave you something that I now have less of.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

too funny. no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object. If the cooler object is exposed to a cooler object, it will radiate at that time. You all have lost your brains.

no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object.

You said, here, the cooler object can't radiate. Its matter is somehow stopped from radiating.
Why are you so confused?

 

[jc456]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

too funny. no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object. If the cooler object is exposed to a cooler object, it will radiate at that time. You all have lost your brains.

no one said that all matter doesn't radiate. what we said was that the warmer object radiates to the cooler object.

You said, here, the cooler object can't radiate. It's matter is somehow stopped from radiating.
Why are you so confused?

well let me clarify my statement then. a cool object will radiate when near a cooler object. if a cool object is in the presence of a warmer object it will absorb the energy from that object and won't radiate until it is at equilibrium and around a cooler object.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the two way flow observation. you know where an object is absorbing and emitting at the same time.

 

[SSDD]

I'll remind myself to say energy transfer or movement from now on....funny when you play word games rather than support your claims with actual evidence...always good for a chuckle...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Planck's Law. Stefan Boltzmann Law. Both tell us that all matter radiates proportionally to it temperature. ALL MATTER RADIATES

Actually, it says that warmer objects in the presence of cooler objects radiate according to their area, their emissivity, and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

And can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? That should be interesting to see....

and the difference between their own temperature and the difference in temperature between themselves and their cooler surroundings...

You have any backup for your dimmer switch theory?
Explicit backup, not your solo misinterpretation.

I don't need any..you are the one who needs some actual evidence to support your belief in spontaneous two way energy movment…

Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 2 degrees...what is P?

Set the temperarure of T to 50 degrees and the temperature of Tc to 50 degrees...what is P?

The physical law itself supports my position and it is based on observation after observation after observation …..sorry you don't agree with physical laws...and worse, you let people convince you not to believe them without the first piece of evidence to suggest that they were wrong.

I don't need any..

How convenient, because you can't find any.

Set the temperarature of T to 50 degrees and the temperarure of Tc to 40 degrees...what is P?

P = net radiated power.

The physical law itself supports my position

Which is why you have no explicit backup.
No one who ever said, matter radiates less in proximity to other matter.
Or fails to radiate at all, near matter of the same temperature.
Even when separated by billions of light years.

Come on, you must have some college professor you could ask.
Why would they lie to you about something so basic and obvious.

Go for it!!!!

Post their response in this thread.

are you claiming that as an object absorbs it is emitting at the same time? and that as an object is emitting it is absorbing?

are you claiming that as an object absorbs it is emitting at the same time?

Absolutely. Einstein agrees with me.