Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

You and that trolling "flat-earth" type crap again. You have absolutely no other argument, and the only one you have believes in smart photons and defies observable, measurable, testable experiments in black body radiation.

It does mention the temperature of the surroundings....it says explicitly that if the object is cooler than the array, that the energy flux is negative...that is energy is being lost by the array to the cooler object...and if the object is warmer than the array, then the energy flux is positive..that is, the array is gaining energy from the warmer object. How much more straight forward and plainly could they state what I have been saying all along?

Your interpretation is a bunch of crap. The handbook did not say it was one way radiation. The flux is the net energy. Everybody understands that, except those who pretend it's not true because they like playing troll games.

 

[jc456]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

You and that trolling "flat-earth" type crap again. You have absolutely no other argument, and the only one you have believes in smart photons and defies observable, measurable, testable experiments in black body radiation.

It does mention the temperature of the surroundings....it says explicitly that if the object is cooler than the array, that the energy flux is negative...that is energy is being lost by the array to the cooler object...and if the object is warmer than the array, then the energy flux is positive..that is, the array is gaining energy from the warmer object. How much more straight forward and plainly could they state what I have been saying all along?

Your interpretation is a bunch of crap. The handbook did not say it was one way radiation. The flux is the net energy. Everybody understands that, except those who pretend it's not true because they like playing troll games.

All he asked you for was observed, measured, tested evidence. Why can’t you present it to counter his arguments?

 

[SSDD]

You and that trolling "flat-earth" type crap again. You have absolutely no other argument, and the only one you have believes in smart photons and defies observable, measurable, testable experiments in black body radiation.

Alas, the wait continues for you to provide a single observed measurement of spontaneous two way energy flow...or spontaneous energy movement from a cool object to a warmer one...without actual measurement to support your claims, I am afraid that it is you who is trolling.

Your interpretation is a bunch of crap. The handbook did not say it was one way radiation. The flux is the net energy. Everybody understands that, except those who pretend it's not true because they like playing troll games.

I didn't "interpret" anything... I simply stated what he said. You on the other hand are interpreting...attepting to write things into the statement that were not there. And if you look at the definition of flux in the scientific dictionary, you don't see any mention of net anything....you are the one who is interpreting..I am simply repeating what the text said. You must interpret in all cases because neither the text of that volume nor the statements of the physical laws themselves support your belief...interpretation is all you have...accepting reality certainly doesn't seem to be an option to you.

 

[Wuwei]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

All physics is mathematical models. Even you believe in them. But you totally misinterpret them.

Set T to the same number as Tc...what does P equal? The physical law itself speaks for me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models are all you have speaking for you...and as to your bastardized version of the SB law...do keep in mind that the SB law assumes that Tc can never be of a lower temperature than T...your bastardized equation allows just that which is contrary to the physical law.

More of the same argument that we went over many times. That's a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. You have no other argument than your smart photons.

Here again is what all Nobel Prize winners and scientists for the last hundred years believe but you pretend not to.

Emission: Pₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Pₐ =εσT₂⁴

The net rate:
Pnet = Pₑ - Pₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

 

[SSDD]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

You and that trolling "flat-earth" type crap again. You have absolutely no other argument, and the only one you have believes in smart photons and defies observable, measurable, testable experiments in black body radiation.

It does mention the temperature of the surroundings....it says explicitly that if the object is cooler than the array, that the energy flux is negative...that is energy is being lost by the array to the cooler object...and if the object is warmer than the array, then the energy flux is positive..that is, the array is gaining energy from the warmer object. How much more straight forward and plainly could they state what I have been saying all along?

Your interpretation is a bunch of crap. The handbook did not say it was one way radiation. The flux is the net energy. Everybody understands that, except those who pretend it's not true because they like playing troll games.

All he asked you for was observed, measured, tested evidence. Why can’t you present it to counter his arguments?

Because there is no physical evidence to support is position...it is all models...all the way down. If he had physical evidence, he would have brought it forward long ago. He has demonstrated pretty clearly that he doesn't know enough about the topic to even know what evidence is...he is fooled by instrumentation at every turn...he believed that bullshit video clip was evidence of the cold ice cream radiating its cold to the warmer camera....he didn't have the fist idea of how the camera worked...and had no idea what caused the image to form...lit is little wonder that he has been duped by the global warming religion...he doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on reality...seems to be a universal trait among them. All models all the time because they can't point to any sort of observed, measured physical evidence.

 

[jc456]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

You and that trolling "flat-earth" type crap again. You have absolutely no other argument, and the only one you have believes in smart photons and defies observable, measurable, testable experiments in black body radiation.

It does mention the temperature of the surroundings....it says explicitly that if the object is cooler than the array, that the energy flux is negative...that is energy is being lost by the array to the cooler object...and if the object is warmer than the array, then the energy flux is positive..that is, the array is gaining energy from the warmer object. How much more straight forward and plainly could they state what I have been saying all along?

Your interpretation is a bunch of crap. The handbook did not say it was one way radiation. The flux is the net energy. Everybody understands that, except those who pretend it's not true because they like playing troll games.

All he asked you for was observed, measured, tested evidence. Why can’t you present it to counter his arguments?

Because there is no physical evidence to support is position...it is all models...all the way down. If he had physical evidence, he would have brought it forward long ago. He has demonstrated pretty clearly that he doesn't know enough about the topic to even know what evidence is...he is fooled by instrumentation at every turn...he believed that bullshit video clip was evidence of the cold ice cream radiating its cold to the warmer camera....he didn't have the fist idea of how the camera worked...and had no idea what caused the image to form...lit is little wonder that he has been duped by the global warming religion...he doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on reality...seems to be a universal trait among them. All models all the time because they can't point to any sort of observed, measured physical evidence.

Yep. You’ve asked for years on here for it. Still nothing. I follow this. I’ve looked for information as well. Nothing. It’s why I hold my position on the topic!

I have found no evidence of back radiation. Just theories and graphs from models

 

[SSDD]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

All physics is mathematical models. Even you believe in them. But you totally misinterpret them.

Set T to the same number as Tc...what does P equal? The physical law itself speaks for me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models are all you have speaking for you...and as to your bastardized version of the SB law...do keep in mind that the SB law assumes that Tc can never be of a lower temperature than T...your bastardized equation allows just that which is contrary to the physical law.

More of the same argument that we went over many times. That's a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. You have no other argument than your smart photons.

Here again is what all Nobel Prize winners and scientists for the last hundred years believe but you pretend not to.

Emission: Pₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Pₐ =εσT₂⁴

The net rate:
Pnet = Pₑ - Pₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? You can't because there is none...if there is none, exactly where does the proof of a "two way" SB law reside within the scientific literature? Answer...nowhere....the same place the physical evidence that might support your belief resides.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is an observation of photons spontaneously leaving the Sun's surface despite your claim that
cooler matter can't/won't be emitted toward hotter matter.

That’s not spontaneous. The core is constantly working

Why is the core an issue?
The photons are emitted at the surface.
Where is the work on the surface?

You said spontaneous when there is work. You think the sun is solid?

You said spontaneous when there is work.

Photons are emitted at the surface.
There is no work occurring at the surface.

Do you think absorption and emission of photons is work?

You think the sun is solid!

Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We are arguing over two explanations that both give the same answer to a general macroscopic question. Mine uses physics that dovetails with all the other laws of physics, yours invokes an unknown and unexplainable mechanism that throttles radiation and prohibits random motion.

One is supported by the laws of physics, and borne out by every observation and measurement ever made....one involves energy movement from cool objects to warm even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that such spontaneous energy movement is not possible...then there is the fact that this energy movement can not be observed or detected with even the most sensitive equipment...and finally, this energy movement is the product of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model......since you brought him up, which one does Occam say is most likely the correct explanation? Do try to be honest if you still have it in you.

You say you are winning but you run away from every question that would lead to an absurdity using your method. In the past you painted yourself into a corner on many occasions, so now you just refuse to answer.

I am not nor have I run away from anything...the physical laws and observation support my position...why would I run away...and as to answers...there is still plenty that we don't know. I don't pretend to know how as of yet unknowable mechanisms work. Imagination and magic is your stomping ground....I prefer reality.

For example, how does evaporation happen if no molecules are allowed to receive more energy than the average? Why don't all the molecules end up with exactly the same kinetic energy? What is the mechanism that stops the prohibited collisions that would cause an uneven distribution of energy? Your version of physics does not match reality therefore it is wrong.

Where do you get the notion that I believe that all molecules must receive exactly the same amount of energy...where did I ever say such a thing...this is just one more instance of you making up arguments and then railing against them...All I have said is that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm..the rest of that jibberish is entirely your invention.

Sorry that you must resort to such obvious dishonesty in an effort to try and make a case for your magical belief...if you can't defend your position without making up arguments for your opponents then railing against your own fiction, what good is that position?

One is supported by the laws of physics, and borne out by every observation and measurement ever made....

And one is epicycles.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

All physics is mathematical models. Even you believe in them. But you totally misinterpret them.

Set T to the same number as Tc...what does P equal? The physical law itself speaks for me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models are all you have speaking for you...and as to your bastardized version of the SB law...do keep in mind that the SB law assumes that Tc can never be of a lower temperature than T...your bastardized equation allows just that which is contrary to the physical law.

More of the same argument that we went over many times. That's a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. You have no other argument than your smart photons.

Here again is what all Nobel Prize winners and scientists for the last hundred years believe but you pretend not to.

Emission: Pₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Pₐ =εσT₂⁴

The net rate:
Pnet = Pₑ - Pₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? You can't because there is none...if there is none, exactly where does the proof of a "two way" SB law reside within the scientific literature? Answer...nowhere....the same place the physical evidence that might support your belief resides.

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. The law is named after Max Planck, who proposed it in 1900. It is a pioneering result of modern physics and quantum theory.

Planck's law - Wikipedia

That's weird, your claim is that objects at equilibrium stop emitting.
Did Planck get it wrong?

 

[IanC]

Where do you get the notion that I believe that all molecules must receive exactly the same amount of energy...where did I ever say such a thing...this is just one more instance of you making up arguments and then railing against them...All I have said is that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm..the rest of that jibberish is entirely your invention

You just said it again!

If no energy is allowed to spontaneously move from cool to warm then no water molecule can attain the threshold energy needed to break free of the liquid. Energy could only move down the ladder and very quickly all the allowable transfers would be made, leaving all the molecules with exactly the average kinetic speed and no further transfers would be possible.

How does evaporation take place in your bizarro world, given the restrictions you claim are universal?

 

[SSDD]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

All physics is mathematical models. Even you believe in them. But you totally misinterpret them.

Set T to the same number as Tc...what does P equal? The physical law itself speaks for me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models are all you have speaking for you...and as to your bastardized version of the SB law...do keep in mind that the SB law assumes that Tc can never be of a lower temperature than T...your bastardized equation allows just that which is contrary to the physical law.

More of the same argument that we went over many times. That's a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. You have no other argument than your smart photons.

Here again is what all Nobel Prize winners and scientists for the last hundred years believe but you pretend not to.

Emission: Pₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Pₐ =εσT₂⁴

The net rate:
Pnet = Pₑ - Pₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? You can't because there is none...if there is none, exactly where does the proof of a "two way" SB law reside within the scientific literature? Answer...nowhere....the same place the physical evidence that might support your belief resides.

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. The law is named after Max Planck, who proposed it in 1900. It is a pioneering result of modern physics and quantum theory.

Planck's law - Wikipedia

That's weird, your claim is that objects at equilibrium stop emitting.
Did Planck get it wrong?

I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...what's that? You can't find one...that's what I thought...that is why I asked for it.

 

[SSDD]

You just said it again!

If no energy is allowed to spontaneously move from cool to warm then no water molecule can attain the threshold energy needed to break free of the liquid. Energy could only move down the ladder and very quickly all the allowable transfers would be made, leaving all the molecules with exactly the average kinetic speed and no further transfers would be possible.

You want to explain why you believe energy from a cooler object can provide the energy necessary to cause evaporation but energy from a warmer object can't? How might the molecule know, or care whether the energy came from a cooler object or a warmer object....guess we are lucky they don't care since they will be receiving no energy from cooler objects.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

All physics is mathematical models. Even you believe in them. But you totally misinterpret them.

Set T to the same number as Tc...what does P equal? The physical law itself speaks for me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models are all you have speaking for you...and as to your bastardized version of the SB law...do keep in mind that the SB law assumes that Tc can never be of a lower temperature than T...your bastardized equation allows just that which is contrary to the physical law.

More of the same argument that we went over many times. That's a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. You have no other argument than your smart photons.

Here again is what all Nobel Prize winners and scientists for the last hundred years believe but you pretend not to.

Emission: Pₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Pₐ =εσT₂⁴

The net rate:
Pnet = Pₑ - Pₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? You can't because there is none...if there is none, exactly where does the proof of a "two way" SB law reside within the scientific literature? Answer...nowhere....the same place the physical evidence that might support your belief resides.

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. The law is named after Max Planck, who proposed it in 1900. It is a pioneering result of modern physics and quantum theory.

Planck's law - Wikipedia

That's weird, your claim is that objects at equilibrium stop emitting.
Did Planck get it wrong?

I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...what's that? You can't find one...that's what I thought...that is why I asked for it.

I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...

Do you not understand what "electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium" means?

Please post a version that says radiation only flows one way.

 

[IanC]

You just said it again!

If no energy is allowed to spontaneously move from cool to warm then no water molecule can attain the threshold energy needed to break free of the liquid. Energy could only move down the ladder and very quickly all the allowable transfers would be made, leaving all the molecules with exactly the average kinetic speed and no further transfers would be possible.

You want to explain why you believe energy from a cooler object can provide the energy necessary to cause evaporation but energy from a warmer object can't? How might the molecule know, or care whether the energy came from a cooler object or a warmer object....guess we are lucky they don't care since they will be receiving no energy from cooler objects.

Quit ducking the question. How does the water molecule attain the threshold energy to evaporate if no interaction is allowed to push energy uphill?

You say no natural spontaneous interaction is possible to boost the energy level of one molecule at the expense of other cooler molecules surrounding it. Therefore no evaporation would be possible.

Yet evaporation does happen. And it cools the liquid by removing the most energetic molecules, leaving the slower molecules behind which by definition will have a lower temperature.

Explain how evaporation happens under your rules.

 

[SSDD]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

All physics is mathematical models. Even you believe in them. But you totally misinterpret them.

Set T to the same number as Tc...what does P equal? The physical law itself speaks for me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models are all you have speaking for you...and as to your bastardized version of the SB law...do keep in mind that the SB law assumes that Tc can never be of a lower temperature than T...your bastardized equation allows just that which is contrary to the physical law.

More of the same argument that we went over many times. That's a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. You have no other argument than your smart photons.

Here again is what all Nobel Prize winners and scientists for the last hundred years believe but you pretend not to.

Emission: Pₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Pₐ =εσT₂⁴

The net rate:
Pnet = Pₑ - Pₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? You can't because there is none...if there is none, exactly where does the proof of a "two way" SB law reside within the scientific literature? Answer...nowhere....the same place the physical evidence that might support your belief resides.

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. The law is named after Max Planck, who proposed it in 1900. It is a pioneering result of modern physics and quantum theory.

Planck's law - Wikipedia

That's weird, your claim is that objects at equilibrium stop emitting.
Did Planck get it wrong?

I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...what's that? You can't find one...that's what I thought...that is why I asked for it.

I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...

Do you not understand what "electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium" means?

Please post a version that says radiation only flows one way.

Of course I do...a is a singular term...a black body...I don't see anything there about another object that the BB might be receiving energy from.

 

[IanC]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

All physics is mathematical models. Even you believe in them. But you totally misinterpret them.

Set T to the same number as Tc...what does P equal? The physical law itself speaks for me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models are all you have speaking for you...and as to your bastardized version of the SB law...do keep in mind that the SB law assumes that Tc can never be of a lower temperature than T...your bastardized equation allows just that which is contrary to the physical law.

More of the same argument that we went over many times. That's a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. You have no other argument than your smart photons.

Here again is what all Nobel Prize winners and scientists for the last hundred years believe but you pretend not to.

Emission: Pₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Pₐ =εσT₂⁴

The net rate:
Pnet = Pₑ - Pₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? You can't because there is none...if there is none, exactly where does the proof of a "two way" SB law reside within the scientific literature? Answer...nowhere....the same place the physical evidence that might support your belief resides.

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. The law is named after Max Planck, who proposed it in 1900. It is a pioneering result of modern physics and quantum theory.

Planck's law - Wikipedia

That's weird, your claim is that objects at equilibrium stop emitting.
Did Planck get it wrong?

I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...what's that? You can't find one...that's what I thought...that is why I asked for it.

Two Planck curves. The lower curve is matched exactly by the upper curve but there is an excess for the warmer curve. The excess is described by the power S-B equation. The radiation for both objects is described by the radiation S-B equation.

You are claiming that only the portion between the curves actually exists, and that all the radiation from the cooler object simply ceases to exist, as well as a similar amount of radiation from the warmer object. You cannot explain where this energy disappears to, or how it is possible to disappear. You ignore the first law of thermodynamics because it doesn't agree with your faulty understanding of the second law.

 

[SSDD]

Quit ducking the question. How does the water molecule attain the threshold energy to evaporate if no interaction is allowed to push energy uphill?

I'm not ducking...I am laughing in your deluded face.....I am asking why evaporation can't be caused by energy moving down hill from a warmer object...are you so blind in your belief that you never even considered that possibility?

You say no natural spontaneous interaction is possible to boost the energy level of one molecule at the expense of other cooler molecules surrounding it. Therefore no evaporation would be possible. e

You really have gone off the deep end...I said that no energy moves spontaneously from cooler objects to warmer objects....that does not preclude energy moving from warmer objects to cooler objects...if water is evaporating, the energy to make it happen came from a warmer object than the water molecule...why would you think that only energy from a cooler object could make water evaporate?

Yet evaporation does happen. And it cools the liquid by removing the most energetic molecules, leaving the slower molecules behind which by definition will have a lower temperature.

The operative phrase there is left behind..

Explain how evaporation happens under your rules.

At its most basic level, evaporation happens when molecules that have absorbed energy from some heat source begin to collide...via collisions some molecules reach an energy level sufficient to escape the liquid form to the vapor form...The heat source is still the reason for evaporation and the energy is still rolling down hill...cooler water molecules aren't warming anything enough to cause evaporation...you have lost any semblance of reason ian.....what the hell has happened to you?

 

[SSDD]

What you mean is that it means nothing in the context of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and if we were living in one of those models, I suppose you might have a point.. Out here in the real world however, where we can observe and measure energy movement it is paramount...You believe in models, I believe in reality...you are willing to ignore reality in favor of models that are untestable.

All physics is mathematical models. Even you believe in them. But you totally misinterpret them.

Set T to the same number as Tc...what does P equal? The physical law itself speaks for me...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models are all you have speaking for you...and as to your bastardized version of the SB law...do keep in mind that the SB law assumes that Tc can never be of a lower temperature than T...your bastardized equation allows just that which is contrary to the physical law.

More of the same argument that we went over many times. That's a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. You have no other argument than your smart photons.

Here again is what all Nobel Prize winners and scientists for the last hundred years believe but you pretend not to.

Emission: Pₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Pₐ =εσT₂⁴

The net rate:
Pnet = Pₑ - Pₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? You can't because there is none...if there is none, exactly where does the proof of a "two way" SB law reside within the scientific literature? Answer...nowhere....the same place the physical evidence that might support your belief resides.

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. The law is named after Max Planck, who proposed it in 1900. It is a pioneering result of modern physics and quantum theory.

Planck's law - Wikipedia

That's weird, your claim is that objects at equilibrium stop emitting.
Did Planck get it wrong?

I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...what's that? You can't find one...that's what I thought...that is why I asked for it.

Two Planck curves. The lower curve is matched exactly by the upper curve but there is an excess for the warmer curve. The excess is described by the power S-B equation. The radiation for both objects is described by the radiation S-B equation.

You are claiming that only the portion between the curves actually exists, and that all the radiation from the cooler object simply ceases to exist, as well as a similar amount of radiation from the warmer object. You cannot explain where this energy disappears to, or how it is possible to disappear. You ignore the first law of thermodynamics because it doesn't agree with your faulty understanding of the second law.

Stil waiting for a two way version of Planck's law...Why not just state that no such thing exists?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All physics is mathematical models. Even you believe in them. But you totally misinterpret them.
More of the same argument that we went over many times. That's a mathematical model. I thought you didn't believe in them. You have no other argument than your smart photons.

Here again is what all Nobel Prize winners and scientists for the last hundred years believe but you pretend not to.

Emission: Pₑ = εσT₁⁴
Absorption: Pₐ =εσT₂⁴

The net rate:
Pnet = Pₑ - Pₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

Again, your bastardized version of the SB equation would allow you to set T=0..that violates the assumption of the SB law that T>Tc....

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law? You can't because there is none...if there is none, exactly where does the proof of a "two way" SB law reside within the scientific literature? Answer...nowhere....the same place the physical evidence that might support your belief resides.

The SB law is an integration of Planck's law....can you show me a two way version of Planck's law?

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. The law is named after Max Planck, who proposed it in 1900. It is a pioneering result of modern physics and quantum theory.

Planck's law - Wikipedia

That's weird, your claim is that objects at equilibrium stop emitting.
Did Planck get it wrong?

I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...what's that? You can't find one...that's what I thought...that is why I asked for it.

I asked for a two way version of Planck's law...

Do you not understand what "electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium" means?

Please post a version that says radiation only flows one way.

Of course I do...a is a singular term...a black body...I don't see anything there about another object that the BB might be receiving energy from.

I don't see anything there about another object that the BB might be receiving energy from

a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.

Equilibrium, with what, you might ask?

We've all seen, and mocked, your previous epicycle that said objects at equilibrium cease emissions.

Please post a version that says radiation only flows one way.

Or maybe another source which disproves your claims? LOL!