Northern nations warming faster than global average

[Wuwei]

If objects emitted in accordance to their temperatures all the time, there would only be a need for one version of the SB law since nothing would change if the object were in the presence of other objects.

There is only one version of the SB law.

Use Google to look up stefan boltzmann law. It is faster to simply click on images. You will see many images like this. Go to the sites if you want. They won't say that it only refers to vacuum.

I know you don't believe that is the general form of the SB law but scientists do. What this shows is simply that you don't believe the science.


.

 

[SSDD]

If objects emitted in accordance to their temperatures all the time, there would only be a need for one version of the SB law since nothing would change if the object were in the presence of other objects.

There is only one version of the SB law.

Use Google to look up stefan boltzmann law. It is faster to simply click on images. You will see many images like this. Go to the sites if you want. They won't say that it only refers to vacuum.

I know you don't believe that is the general form of the SB law but scientists do. What this shows is simply that you don't believe the science.


.

Picking fly shit out of pepper in an attempt to make yourself feel good? You know full well...or maybe you don't ...that the equation above is for a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a theoretical empty vacuum...there are other forms of the equation that apply when there is other matter present...

You are pathetic and laughable..

 

[SSDD]

He didn't measure spontaneous two way energy movement since there is no such thing...you are a true blue top shelf dupe...

Again you are essentially calling all scientists top shelf dupes.

Black body radiation is exchanged between any two objects in proximity at any temperatures. If you don't believe that you don't believe quantum mechanics.


.

I believe evidence...since there is none, you have placed your faith in an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality in which no such spontaneous energy movement has ever been observed or measured...You have faith..I have every observation and measurement ever made...

Physics already has a pretty good handle on how radiation is produced and transfered.

You want them to find some esoteric means by which the temperature of a distant object controls the internal atomic scale conditions of the near object. It's not going to happen because it's absurd and no one is looking for it. Why would they?

I didn't make up the rules by which photons supposedly exist...but if you believe in them, then the rules have implications...and one of the implications is that the photon exists simultaneously along every point of its trajectory...another is that terms like near, far, and distant are irrelevant...

 

[SSDD]

I believe evidence...since there is none, you have placed your faith in an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality in which no such spontaneous energy movement has ever been observed or measured...You have faith..I have every observation and measurement ever made...

You were given several types of experimental evidence that radiation from a cold object is unaffected by a hotter object, but you choose to disbelieve basic physics, and refer to all scientists as dupes.


.

Like your belief that a f'ing flashlight is a spontaneous process? Laughing in your face.

 

[SSDD]

All objects emit in accordance to their temperatures, all the time.

.

No they don't...they only emit in accordance to their temperatures if they are in a vacuum...I provided emails from several top shelf physicists who stated exactly that. The fact that you prefer to believe in your misunderstanding says volumes... If objects emitted in accordance to their temperatures all the time, there would only be a need for one version of the SB law since nothing would change if the object were in the presence of other objects...

You didn't ask those physicists if the temperature of the radiation bath stopped or slowed the internal production of radiation in the object. You didnt ask whether the change in energy for the object was the net result of output minus input.

Why don't you put up all of the replies? Not just the ambiguous one you showed us?

I asked if

applied only to theoretical perfect black bodies radiating into theoretical empty vacuum because you were making the claim that the equation applied equally to everything...and you were wrong...that equation applies only to a perfect radiator all alone in a perfect vacuum...

Since I am perfectly capable of reading an equation, there was no need to ask what

says...it is written right there ...the radiation being emitted by a radiator, that is not a perfect black body and that is not in an empty vacuum equal to its emissivity times the SB constant times its area times the difference to the 4th power of its own temperarue and the temperature of its surroundings. It is a straight forward equation , easily read and completely unambiguous...

 

[IanC]

He didn't measure spontaneous two way energy movement since there is no such thing...you are a true blue top shelf dupe...

Again you are essentially calling all scientists top shelf dupes.

Black body radiation is exchanged between any two objects in proximity at any temperatures. If you don't believe that you don't believe quantum mechanics.


.

I believe evidence...since there is none, you have placed your faith in an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality in which no such spontaneous energy movement has ever been observed or measured...You have faith..I have every observation and measurement ever made...

Physics already has a pretty good handle on how radiation is produced and transfered.

You want them to find some esoteric means by which the temperature of a distant object controls the internal atomic scale conditions of the near object. It's not going to happen because it's absurd and no one is looking for it. Why would they?

I didn't make up the rules by which photons supposedly exist...but if you believe in them, then the rules have implications...and one of the implications is that the photon exists simultaneously along every point of its trajectory...another is that terms like near, far, and distant are irrelevant...

Bullshit.

Unlike the actual measurement of the speed of light etc, the theoretical frame of reference for light is only supposition that has no physical evidence.

 

[SSDD]

He didn't measure spontaneous two way energy movement since there is no such thing...you are a true blue top shelf dupe...

Again you are essentially calling all scientists top shelf dupes.

Black body radiation is exchanged between any two objects in proximity at any temperatures. If you don't believe that you don't believe quantum mechanics.


.

I believe evidence...since there is none, you have placed your faith in an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality in which no such spontaneous energy movement has ever been observed or measured...You have faith..I have every observation and measurement ever made...

Physics already has a pretty good handle on how radiation is produced and transfered.

You want them to find some esoteric means by which the temperature of a distant object controls the internal atomic scale conditions of the near object. It's not going to happen because it's absurd and no one is looking for it. Why would they?

I didn't make up the rules by which photons supposedly exist...but if you believe in them, then the rules have implications...and one of the implications is that the photon exists simultaneously along every point of its trajectory...another is that terms like near, far, and distant are irrelevant...

Bullshit.

Unlike the actual measurement of the speed of light etc, the theoretical frame of reference for light is only supposition that has no physical evidence.

And yet, that is the reality in which they claim photons exist...

 

[IanC]

All objects emit in accordance to their temperatures, all the time.

.

No they don't...they only emit in accordance to their temperatures if they are in a vacuum...I provided emails from several top shelf physicists who stated exactly that. The fact that you prefer to believe in your misunderstanding says volumes... If objects emitted in accordance to their temperatures all the time, there would only be a need for one version of the SB law since nothing would change if the object were in the presence of other objects...

You didn't ask those physicists if the temperature of the radiation bath stopped or slowed the internal production of radiation in the object. You didnt ask whether the change in energy for the object was the net result of output minus input.

Why don't you put up all of the replies? Not just the ambiguous one you showed us?

I asked if

applied only to theoretical perfect black bodies radiating into theoretical empty vacuum because you were making the claim that the equation applied equally to everything...and you were wrong...that equation applies only to a perfect radiator all alone in a perfect vacuum...

Since I am perfectly capable of reading an equation, there was no need to ask what

says...it is written right there ...the radiation being emitted by a radiator, that is not a perfect black body and that is not in an empty vacuum equal to its emissivity times the SB constant times its area times the difference to the 4th power of its own temperarue and the temperature of its surroundings. It is a straight forward equation , easily read and completely unambiguous...

Why are you OK with the area being transferred to the left side in your first equation? I thought it was corrupt to make changes?

And please expand upon your understanding about what the term for area means.

In your explanation of the Sun's surface to corona question (sorry, my guess at what you would say if you ever answered the question) you say that only the radiation that is directly aimed at where the ion will be, will be prohibited.

While it is common to take the angle into consideration you have brought a whole new order of complexity by scaling it down to individual atomic particles.

 

[IanC]

Again you are essentially calling all scientists top shelf dupes.

Black body radiation is exchanged between any two objects in proximity at any temperatures. If you don't believe that you don't believe quantum mechanics.


.

I believe evidence...since there is none, you have placed your faith in an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model over reality in which no such spontaneous energy movement has ever been observed or measured...You have faith..I have every observation and measurement ever made...

Physics already has a pretty good handle on how radiation is produced and transfered.

You want them to find some esoteric means by which the temperature of a distant object controls the internal atomic scale conditions of the near object. It's not going to happen because it's absurd and no one is looking for it. Why would they?

I didn't make up the rules by which photons supposedly exist...but if you believe in them, then the rules have implications...and one of the implications is that the photon exists simultaneously along every point of its trajectory...another is that terms like near, far, and distant are irrelevant...

Bullshit.

Unlike the actual measurement of the speed of light etc, the theoretical frame of reference for light is only supposition that has no physical evidence.

And yet, that is the reality in which they claim photons exist...

Who is they? Is that they the same one that you call dupes? Why do you believe the hypothetical guess about the luminal reference frame and ignore the measurements done in our own reality?

 

[SSDD]

Why are you OK with the area being transferred to the left side in your first equation? I thought it was corrupt to make changes?

So now you are so desperate that you have sunk to picking flyshit out of pepper also? Funny.

And please expand upon your understanding about what the term for area means.

You don't know what area means? WOW!!!! You really don't know what radiating area means?

In your explanation of the Sun's surface to corona question (sorry, my guess at what you would say if you ever answered the question) you say that only the radiation that is directly aimed at where the ion will be, will be prohibited.

Energy does not move spontaneously from cool areas to warmer areas...pretty unambiguous statement...the interpretations you guys put on it are endlessly entertaining.

While it is common to take the angle into consideration you have brought a whole new order of complexity by scaling it down to individual atomic particles.

Is a molecule an individual atomic particle?

 

[Wuwei]

Picking fly shit out of pepper in an attempt to make yourself feel good? You know full well...or maybe you don't ...that the equation above is for a theoretical perfect black body radiating into a theoretical empty vacuum...there are other forms of the equation that apply when there is other matter present...

You are pathetic and laughable..

You are always testy when you are wrong.
The basic SB equation certainly works for a black body radiating to a perfect vacuum, but it also works for a BB radiating to anything else. You have not found a references that says that form of the equation fails if there is another radiating body nearby.

You know full well that the equation P = ɛ ỼAT⁴ has no constraints.
Yet you still insist on saying all scientists are "Picking fly shit out of pepper in an attempt to feel good?

And you still insist on saying all scientists "are pathetic and laughable.."

Yes, we all know that you are not interested in science and playing a game, trying to win at all costs. But you are really degrading yourself and your disdain for basic physics is really bizarre.


.

 

[SSDD]

You are always testy when you are wrong.
The basic SB equation certainly works for a black body radiating to a perfect vacuum, but it also works for a BB radiating to anything else. You have not found a references that says that form of the equation fails if there is another radiating body nearby.

Sorry, but it doesn't.....which is why there are multiple forms of the equation for different scenarios. One more example of your inability to understand even basic concepts.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry, but it doesn't.....which is why there are multiple forms of the equation for different scenarios. One more example of your inability to understand even basic concepts.

Nope you are dead wrong. Read up on it.


.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry, but it doesn't.....which is why there are multiple forms of the equation for different scenarios. One more example of your inability to understand even basic concepts.

Nope you are dead wrong. Read up on it.


.

I have...and I took the time to ask the question of some top shelf physicists...all stated clearly that the equation associated with the SB law applied to perfect radiators in perfectly empty vacuums....the other equation I commonly provide is for less than perfect radiators in the presence of other matter.

I know how badly you want to be right...try being a bit skeptical and do some reading...if you are willing to give up your belief in models over reality, you to can support your position with actual evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, but it doesn't.....which is why there are multiple forms of the equation for different scenarios. One more example of your inability to understand even basic concepts.

Nope you are dead wrong. Read up on it.


.

I have...and I took the time to ask the question of some top shelf physicists...all stated clearly that the equation associated with the SB law applied to perfect radiators in perfectly empty vacuums....the other equation I commonly provide is for less than perfect radiators in the presence of other matter.

I know how badly you want to be right...try being a bit skeptical and do some reading...if you are willing to give up your belief in models over reality, you to can support your position with actual evidence.

I took the time to ask the question of some top shelf physicists...all stated clearly that the equation associated with the SB law applied to perfect radiators in perfectly empty vacuums..

Conveniently forgetting to ask them if matter dials down its radiating in the presence of other matter.
You should contact them again, to put this issue to rest once and for all.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry, but it doesn't.....which is why there are multiple forms of the equation for different scenarios. One more example of your inability to understand even basic concepts.

Nope you are dead wrong. Read up on it.


.

I have...and I took the time to ask the question of some top shelf physicists...all stated clearly that the equation associated with the SB law applied to perfect radiators in perfectly empty vacuums....the other equation I commonly provide is for less than perfect radiators in the presence of other matter.

I know how badly you want to be right...try being a bit skeptical and do some reading...if you are willing to give up your belief in models over reality, you to can support your position with actual evidence.

I took the time to ask the question of some top shelf physicists...all stated clearly that the equation associated with the SB law applied to perfect radiators in perfectly empty vacuums..

Conveniently forgetting to ask them if matter dials down its radiating in the presence of other matter.
You should contact them again, to put this issue to rest once and for all.

No need...if you can read an equation.. it states pretty clearly what is happening..if you can read an equation that is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, but it doesn't.....which is why there are multiple forms of the equation for different scenarios. One more example of your inability to understand even basic concepts.

Nope you are dead wrong. Read up on it.


.

I have...and I took the time to ask the question of some top shelf physicists...all stated clearly that the equation associated with the SB law applied to perfect radiators in perfectly empty vacuums....the other equation I commonly provide is for less than perfect radiators in the presence of other matter.

I know how badly you want to be right...try being a bit skeptical and do some reading...if you are willing to give up your belief in models over reality, you to can support your position with actual evidence.

I took the time to ask the question of some top shelf physicists...all stated clearly that the equation associated with the SB law applied to perfect radiators in perfectly empty vacuums..

Conveniently forgetting to ask them if matter dials down its radiating in the presence of other matter.
You should contact them again, to put this issue to rest once and for all.

No need...if you can read an equation.. it states pretty clearly what is happening..if you can read an equation that is.

No need..

Don't be scared.....you can do it.

 

[Wuwei]

I have...and I took the time to ask the question of some top shelf physicists...all stated clearly that the equation associated with the SB law applied to perfect radiators in perfectly empty vacuums....the other equation I commonly provide is for less than perfect radiators in the presence of other matter.

I know how badly you want to be right...try being a bit skeptical and do some reading...if you are willing to give up your belief in models over reality, you to can support your position with actual evidence.

Of course the equation applies in a vacuum. Everyone agrees. But the crucial question is if objects radiate the same when there is a warmer object nearby? Your top shelf physicists would have said yes.

There is no evidence that black body radiation fails near a warmer object. You will not be able to find any.

How badly I want to be right?... I and all physicists already know I'm right.


.

 

[SSDD]

But the crucial question is if objects radiate the same when there is a warmer object nearby?

If there were no change, there would be no need for a different equation when other objects are near by...what is it like to be so blinded by your wish to be right that you can't even see the blatantly obvious?

There is no evidence that black body radiation fails near a warmer object. You will not be able to find any.

Since there are no observations, or measurements of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object...but any number of observations and measurements of energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool the evidence is overwhelming...sorry you can't see that...

 

[IanC]

No need...if you can read an equation.. it states pretty clearly what is happening..if you can read an equation that is.

Although I have brought this up before, I will repeat myself.

The two object S-B equation must be calculated for each object if you want to know what type of radiation is being transferred, instead of just the amount.

Under SSDDs regime there is no radiation produced by two objects at the same temperature, the temperature doesn't matter. 10C, 100C, 1000C all give the same answer.

But what happens if you measure the radiation between 10C and 10+C, the smallest temperature difference that still makes a radiation flow. What wavelengths are the photons? How about for 100+C, and 1000+C? The warmer temperatures will produce more energetic photons even if the amount of radiation is the same in all three cases.

The normal interpretation of S-B easily gives the information, SSDDs bizarroland interpretation cannot supply the information. Yet another contradiction to add to his pile.