Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[jc456]

Not IR. Again, negative or positive change in flux

Not IR.

LOL! It was a thermal sensor measuring thermal radiation.

What wavelengths? Higher or lower than IR?

And notice, it says net flux. SSDD claimed there is no net, that energy only flows one way.

You are mistaken

About what?

Be specific.

right here, SSDD explanation for you that matches your highligted text.

SSDD

what is being measured is how much, and how fast the array is losing energy to the cooler object...it isn't measuring incoming photons from a cooler object because there are none...

Thanks.
That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

SSDD says radiation flows in only one direction.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says there is a radiation exchange.

SSDD has no sources that agree with his misinterpretations, the above passage
was from a source he originally referenced.

Is that as amusing to you as it is to me?

That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

It says the same thing that SSDD said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not IR.

LOL! It was a thermal sensor measuring thermal radiation.

What wavelengths? Higher or lower than IR?

And notice, it says net flux. SSDD claimed there is no net, that energy only flows one way.

You are mistaken

About what?

Be specific.

right here, SSDD explanation for you that matches your highligted text.

SSDD

what is being measured is how much, and how fast the array is losing energy to the cooler object...it isn't measuring incoming photons from a cooler object because there are none...

Thanks.
That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

SSDD says radiation flows in only one direction.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says there is a radiation exchange.

SSDD has no sources that agree with his misinterpretations, the above passage
was from a source he originally referenced.

Is that as amusing to you as it is to me?

That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

It says the same thing that SSDD said.

SSDD says there is no exchange.
He says that there is no net.

He's wrong.

 

[jc456]

You are mistaken

About what?

Be specific.

right here, SSDD explanation for you that matches your highligted text.

SSDD

what is being measured is how much, and how fast the array is losing energy to the cooler object...it isn't measuring incoming photons from a cooler object because there are none...

Thanks.
That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

SSDD says radiation flows in only one direction.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says there is a radiation exchange.

SSDD has no sources that agree with his misinterpretations, the above passage
was from a source he originally referenced.

Is that as amusing to you as it is to me?

That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

It says the same thing that SSDD said.

View attachment 187501

SSDD says there is no exchange.
He says that there is no net.

He's wrong.

not at all. cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

losing energy to the cooler object.

And again, you'd see the breath from the girl if it were reading photons from the cool objects.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

About what?

Be specific.

right here, SSDD explanation for you that matches your highligted text.

SSDD

what is being measured is how much, and how fast the array is losing energy to the cooler object...it isn't measuring incoming photons from a cooler object because there are none...

Thanks.
That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

SSDD says radiation flows in only one direction.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says there is a radiation exchange.

SSDD has no sources that agree with his misinterpretations, the above passage
was from a source he originally referenced.

Is that as amusing to you as it is to me?

That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

It says the same thing that SSDD said.

View attachment 187501

SSDD says there is no exchange.
He says that there is no net.

He's wrong.

not at all. cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

losing energy to the cooler object.

cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
It's against his religion.

 

[SSDD]

Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
It's against his religion.

Alas..it isn't religion to me...my position requires no belief in something that can not be observed, measured, or detected in any way. My position relies on observable, measurable reality without even the smallest bit of faith involved...Your position on the other hand is entirely faith based...it requires that you believe in all manner of unobservable, unmeasurable, and completely undetectable phenomena...it requires that you not only invest a great deal of faith in theoretical particles, but that you believe absolutely in what they can and can not do...Your position is based in and relies entirely on faith since there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support it.

 

[jc456]

right here, SSDD explanation for you that matches your highligted text.

SSDD

what is being measured is how much, and how fast the array is losing energy to the cooler object...it isn't measuring incoming photons from a cooler object because there are none...

Thanks.
That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

SSDD says radiation flows in only one direction.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says there is a radiation exchange.

SSDD has no sources that agree with his misinterpretations, the above passage
was from a source he originally referenced.

Is that as amusing to you as it is to me?

That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

It says the same thing that SSDD said.

View attachment 187501

SSDD says there is no exchange.
He says that there is no net.

He's wrong.

not at all. cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

losing energy to the cooler object.

cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
It's against his religion.

again, warm objects the sensor receives, cold objects the sensor sends out. to your terminology, net thermal flux right? two way flow? just not the way your belief has it.

 

[IanC]

Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
It's against his religion.

Alas..it isn't religion to me...my position requires no belief in something that can not be observed, measured, or detected in any way. My position relies on observable, measurable reality without even the smallest bit of faith involved...Your position on the other hand is entirely faith based...it requires that you believe in all manner of unobservable, unmeasurable, and completely undetectable phenomena...it requires that you not only invest a great deal of faith in theoretical particles, but that you believe absolutely in what they can and can not do...Your position is based in and relies entirely on faith since there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support it.

Actually, your position depends on an unknown mechanism that overturns the laws of electrical charge. That only you and your sycophants here believe in.

My position meshes easily with all the other branches of physics. Yours does not.

Why don't you attempt to explain Stefan's cavity experiment that is the source of the S-B equations? According to you it shouldn't work, and the detectors are just fooling us. Why are you so certain of one, and only one, variant of the equations if they come from a tainted source?

 

[jc456]

Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
It's against his religion.

Alas..it isn't religion to me...my position requires no belief in something that can not be observed, measured, or detected in any way. My position relies on observable, measurable reality without even the smallest bit of faith involved...Your position on the other hand is entirely faith based...it requires that you believe in all manner of unobservable, unmeasurable, and completely undetectable phenomena...it requires that you not only invest a great deal of faith in theoretical particles, but that you believe absolutely in what they can and can not do...Your position is based in and relies entirely on faith since there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support it.

Actually, your position depends on an unknown mechanism that overturns the laws of electrical charge. That only you and your sycophants here believe in.

My position meshes easily with all the other branches of physics. Yours does not.

Why don't you attempt to explain Stefan's cavity experiment that is the source of the S-B equations? According to you it shouldn't work, and the detectors are just fooling us. Why are you so certain of one, and only one, variant of the equations if they come from a tainted source?

are you saying the S-B equation is wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
It's against his religion.

Alas..it isn't religion to me...my position requires no belief in something that can not be observed, measured, or detected in any way. My position relies on observable, measurable reality without even the smallest bit of faith involved...Your position on the other hand is entirely faith based...it requires that you believe in all manner of unobservable, unmeasurable, and completely undetectable phenomena...it requires that you not only invest a great deal of faith in theoretical particles, but that you believe absolutely in what they can and can not do...Your position is based in and relies entirely on faith since there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support it.

Your position on the other hand is entirely faith based

My position, radiation moves in any and all directions, in no way restricted by hotter warmer nearby or by
hotter matter millions of light years away.

Apparently, the Handbook of Modern Sensors agrees with my position.

Do you have a similar source that agrees with your faulty interpretation of the 2nd Law?
Of should we just believe you, because...........?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what is being measured is how much, and how fast the array is losing energy to the cooler object...it isn't measuring incoming photons from a cooler object because there are none...

Thanks.
That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

SSDD says radiation flows in only one direction.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says there is a radiation exchange.

SSDD has no sources that agree with his misinterpretations, the above passage
was from a source he originally referenced.

Is that as amusing to you as it is to me?

That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

It says the same thing that SSDD said.

View attachment 187501

SSDD says there is no exchange.
He says that there is no net.

He's wrong.

not at all. cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

losing energy to the cooler object.

cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
It's against his religion.

again, warm objects the sensor receives, cold objects the sensor sends out. to your terminology, net thermal flux right? two way flow? just not the way your belief has it.

again, warm objects the sensor receives, cold objects the sensor sends out.

Again, both emit photons all the time, as long as they're above 0K.
The net flux tells which is warmer.
SSDD claims there is no net flux, just one-way flux.

The Handbook of Modern Sensors disagrees with his claim and agrees with mine.

 

[jc456]

That's an example of SSDD claiming no photons move from cool matter to warmer matter.
The Handbook of Modern Sensors in the above passage says photons go both ways.

It says the same thing that SSDD said.

View attachment 187501

SSDD says there is no exchange.
He says that there is no net.

He's wrong.

not at all. cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

losing energy to the cooler object.

cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
It's against his religion.

again, warm objects the sensor receives, cold objects the sensor sends out. to your terminology, net thermal flux right? two way flow? just not the way your belief has it.

again, warm objects the sensor receives, cold objects the sensor sends out.

Again, both emit photons all the time, as long as they're above 0K.
The net flux tells which is warmer.
SSDD claims there is no net flux, just one-way flux.

The Handbook of Modern Sensors disagrees with his claim and agrees with mine.

I disagree, and the explanation has been given. cold objects do not radiate to warm objects. there is no evidence. and the details on how the sensor works has also been given. so unless you have evidence otherwise, you're stuck in your own belief.

 

[IanC]

are you saying the S-B equation is wrong?

Not at all.

The Stefan experiment was amazingly clever. Finding the relationship was amazingly useful.

It says that any object radiates in relationship to its temperature. All the time, no exceptions. j=sigmaT^^4

The power radiated is surface area times the amount radiated. This also happens all the time, no exceptions.

Wuwei gave the mathematical calculations showing that the net power flux for an object is the difference between the amount emitted and the amount absorbed, over the surface area of the object.

This is a subtle but equivalent difference to SSDD's favourite variation of the equation. In this scenario we only have to deal with one object. Although we do need to know the amount of radiation impinging on the object from external sources, we need to know very little else.

For example, calculating the amount of radiation reaching the object from the Sun at noon, or a heat lamp only one metre away may be equal but their temperatures are not.

How, exactly, does the temperature of the Sun or heat lamp get inside the object and short circuit the radiation produced by moving electrical charges?

Does the temperature of the Sun change somehow with distance? Or is it just the inverse square law?

Maybe SSDD can flesh out his controversial theory to explain these problems.

 

[jc456]

are you saying the S-B equation is wrong?

Not at all.

The Stefan experiment was amazingly clever. Finding the relationship was amazingly useful.

It says that any object radiates in relationship to its temperature. All the time, no exceptions. j=sigmaT^^4

The power radiated is surface area times the amount radiated. This also happens all the time, no exceptions.

Wuwei gave the mathematical calculations showing that the net power flux for an object is the difference between the amount emitted and the amount absorbed, over the surface area of the object.

This is a subtle but equivalent difference to SSDD's favourite variation of the equation. In this scenario we only have to deal with one object. Although we do need to know the amount of radiation impinging on the object from external sources, we need to know very little else.

For example, calculating the amount of radiation reaching the object from the Sun at noon, or a heat lamp only one metre away may be equal but their temperatures are not.

How, exactly, does the temperature of the Sun or heat lamp get inside the object and short circuit the radiation produced by moving electrical charges?

Does the temperature of the Sun change somehow with distance? Or is it just the inverse square law?

Maybe SSDD can flesh out his controversial theory to explain these problems.

This is a subtle but equivalent difference to SSDD's favourite variation of the equation. In this scenario we only have to deal with one object.

Which part does it mention two objects?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 187501

SSDD says there is no exchange.
He says that there is no net.

He's wrong.

not at all. cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

losing energy to the cooler object.

cooler object receives from the device net flow is toward the cold object through the sensor.

Don't let SSDD see you talking about net flow.
It's against his religion.

again, warm objects the sensor receives, cold objects the sensor sends out. to your terminology, net thermal flux right? two way flow? just not the way your belief has it.

again, warm objects the sensor receives, cold objects the sensor sends out.

Again, both emit photons all the time, as long as they're above 0K.
The net flux tells which is warmer.
SSDD claims there is no net flux, just one-way flux.

The Handbook of Modern Sensors disagrees with his claim and agrees with mine.

I disagree, and the explanation has been given. cold objects do not radiate to warm objects. there is no evidence. and the details on how the sensor works has also been given. so unless you have evidence otherwise, you're stuck in your own belief.

I disagree, and the explanation has been given. cold objects do not radiate to warm objects.

You should contact the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors.
Tell them their diagram is wrong. Explain your "reasoning".
Please post their response.

 

[IanC]

Which part does it mention two objects?

Hahahaha. You caught me out again! No matter how often I promise myself that I won't respond to retards, I still slip up.

 

[MPS777]

are you saying the S-B equation is wrong?

Not at all.

The Stefan experiment was amazingly clever. Finding the relationship was amazingly useful.

It says that any object radiates in relationship to its temperature. All the time, no exceptions. j=sigmaT^^4

The power radiated is surface area times the amount radiated. This also happens all the time, no exceptions.

Wuwei gave the mathematical calculations showing that the net power flux for an object is the difference between the amount emitted and the amount absorbed, over the surface area of the object.

This is a subtle but equivalent difference to SSDD's favourite variation of the equation. In this scenario we only have to deal with one object. Although we do need to know the amount of radiation impinging on the object from external sources, we need to know very little else.

For example, calculating the amount of radiation reaching the object from the Sun at noon, or a heat lamp only one metre away may be equal but their temperatures are not.

How, exactly, does the temperature of the Sun or heat lamp get inside the object and short circuit the radiation produced by moving electrical charges?

Does the temperature of the Sun change somehow with distance? Or is it just the inverse square law?

Maybe SSDD can flesh out his controversial theory to explain these problems.

>>>”Maybe SSDD can flesh out his controversial theory to explain these problems.”

Yeah, he needs to mathematically formalize his view, or else I don’t think it actually achieves what he “wants” it to achieve. His only formal rule seems to be that a vibrating particle can’t emit its thermal radiation into a warmer particle; and he always pins this to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However nothing in the 2nd law states that the radiation must be emitted into space. So unless he defines some of his own formal rules for thermal radiation, then particles on earth and in the atmosphere could just emit their radiation into any other cooler particle on earth or in the atmosphere. As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

Which part does it mention two objects?

With the SB law you only have to deal with one object -- the object simply radiates according to T⁴.

It is Kirchhoff's law that allows you to also deal with absorption. Kirchhoff formally showed that the emissivity for both emission and absorption are identical, so if a background is radiating at the object, you can algebraically factor out the emissivity and sigma from both emission and absorption to get the subtracted form, εσ(T₁⁴–T₂⁴).

Some people on this board don't understand Kirchhoff's mathematical contribution to the SB model. (Yes, it is a scary dreaded model.)

 

[Wuwei]

Yeah, he needs to mathematically formalize his view, or else I don’t think it actually achieves what he “wants” it to achieve. His only formal rule seems to be that a vibrating particle can’t emit its thermal radiation into a warmer particle; and he always pins this to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However nothing in the 2nd law states that the radiation must be emitted into space. So unless he defines some of his own formal rules for thermal radiation, then particles on earth and in the atmosphere could just emit their radiation into any other cooler particle on earth or in the atmosphere. As long as radiation is bouncing around on earth and the atmosphere, it’s not escaping as fast as it would without the atmosphere.

Yes, in other words he is defying Lambert's cosine law of radiation. Lambert published his law in 1760. This is odd because SSDD usually favors laws that predate quantum mechanics, and this one predates it by 150 years.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, your position depends on an unknown mechanism that overturns the laws of electrical charge. That only you and your sycophants here believe in.

We deal with unknown mechanisms all the time...gravity being one and the very nature of energy movement being another...no magic there even though the mechanisms remain unknown.

 

[SSDD]

The Stefan experiment was amazingly clever. Finding the relationship was amazingly useful.

It says that any object radiates in relationship to its temperature. All the time, no exceptions. j=sigmaT^^4

That equation only applies if you are dealing with a perfect black body that is all alone in a perfect vacuum. Your insistence that it applies to everything all the time is either ignorance or plain old dishonesty...I lean towards dishonesty since I provided you with emails from some top shelf physicists who said that that equation only applies to black bodies in a vacuum devoid of other matter.