Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

Only if the object is a perfect black body and in a perfect vacuum that is perfectly devoid of other matter....that is the only time matter radiates in all directions according to its temperature...put it in the presence of matter and the game changes.

put it in the presence of matter and the game changes.

The game change is that the both substances exchange radiation with each other. Otherwise it is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.

 

[Wuwei]

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

Here’s another interesting passage from page 103:
.....Thus, a vibrating particle is a source of an electromagnetic field which propagates outwardly with the speed of light and is governed by the laws of optics."

You guys are making SSDD shoot himself in the foot again. By now his foot is already riddled with bullet holes.

 

[SSDD]

Only if the object is a perfect black body and in a perfect vacuum that is perfectly devoid of other matter....that is the only time matter radiates in all directions according to its temperature...put it in the presence of matter and the game changes.

put it in the presence of matter and the game changes.

The game change is that the both substances exchange radiation with each other. Otherwise it is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.

So you say, and yet, you can't show a single observation or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from a cooler object to a warmer object even though we are able to measure minute energy movements...according to flacalten, we can measure movement as small as a single photon.

 

[SSDD]

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

Here’s another interesting passage from page 103:
.....Thus, a vibrating particle is a source of an electromagnetic field which propagates outwardly with the speed of light and is governed by the laws of optics."

You guys are making SSDD shoot himself in the foot again. By now his foot is already riddled with bullet holes.

Who said that EM fields don't propagate outward....I don't see anything there about them propagating outward in all directions even if their surroundings are warmer than themselves. Alas, it is your feet that are full of holes due to your gross misunderstandings of not only physics, but of instrumentation.

 

[IanC]

.

What does it sense to trigger the change?

It senses a temperature change you idiot...either warmer or cooler and then converts the amount and rate of change across the array into an image...if the object is cooler then what is being measured is how much and how quickly the array is cooling...

It senses a temperature change

How?

Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?

No you moron....if the object is cooler than the sensor array, then 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....tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy.

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

Look what I found on page 3.

That's so weird, because I've always said that the warmer emitter can't tell the temperature of the cooler target in order to adjust the "dimmer switch" if the cooler target never emits.

This neat book, not sure if it's the same one you supposedly took your passage from, says there is always a transmission of energy.

And on page 106.......

106 3 Physical Principles of Sensing

Fig. 3.43. Thermal radiation exchange between an object and a thermal radiation sensor.
from the sensor toward the object must also be taken into account. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself). The surface of the sensor which faces the object has emissivity εs (and, subsequently, reflectivity ρs =1−εs). Because the sensor is only partly absorptive, not the entire flux, .b0, is absorbed and utilized. A part of it, .ba, is absorbed by the sensor and another part, .br, is reflected (Fig. 3.43) back toward to object.20 The reflected flux is proportional to the sensor’s coefficient of reflectivity:

It's weird, the nice diagram shows energy going both ways.......not one way

tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Positive means the net flux flows toward the sensor, in other words, the target is hotter.
That means the sensor receives more energy from the target than it sends toward the target.
Negative means the net flux flows toward the target, in other words, the target is cooler.
That means the sensor sends more energy to the target than it receives from the target

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

Thanks, great link.

Is it actually the source SSDD was referencing?

Poor SSDD. He hunts around for anything that could be twisted out of context to appear to be agreeing with him, only to be embarrassed once again when the whole story comes out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.

What does it sense to trigger the change?

It senses a temperature change you idiot...either warmer or cooler and then converts the amount and rate of change across the array into an image...if the object is cooler then what is being measured is how much and how quickly the array is cooling...

It senses a temperature change

How?

Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?

No you moron....if the object is cooler than the sensor array, then 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....tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy.

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

Look what I found on page 3.

That's so weird, because I've always said that the warmer emitter can't tell the temperature of the cooler target in order to adjust the "dimmer switch" if the cooler target never emits.

This neat book, not sure if it's the same one you supposedly took your passage from, says there is always a transmission of energy.

And on page 106.......

106 3 Physical Principles of Sensing

Fig. 3.43. Thermal radiation exchange between an object and a thermal radiation sensor.
from the sensor toward the object must also be taken into account. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself). The surface of the sensor which faces the object has emissivity εs (and, subsequently, reflectivity ρs =1−εs). Because the sensor is only partly absorptive, not the entire flux, .b0, is absorbed and utilized. A part of it, .ba, is absorbed by the sensor and another part, .br, is reflected (Fig. 3.43) back toward to object.20 The reflected flux is proportional to the sensor’s coefficient of reflectivity:

It's weird, the nice diagram shows energy going both ways.......not one way

tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Positive means the net flux flows toward the sensor, in other words, the target is hotter.
That means the sensor receives more energy from the target than it sends toward the target.
Negative means the net flux flows toward the target, in other words, the target is cooler.
That means the sensor sends more energy to the target than it receives from the target

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

Thanks, great link.

Is it actually the source SSDD was referencing?

Poor SSDD. He hunts around for anything that could be twisted out of context to appear to be agreeing with him, only to be embarrassed once again when the whole story comes out.

Is it actually the source SSDD was referencing?

He did a cut and paste, but no link.
Maybe his source was a different edition? I think mine was the 3rd edition.
In that edition, his page number and heading weren't there.

If he provides an actual link, I'm sure he'll be wrong again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only if the object is a perfect black body and in a perfect vacuum that is perfectly devoid of other matter....that is the only time matter radiates in all directions according to its temperature...put it in the presence of matter and the game changes.

put it in the presence of matter and the game changes.

The game change is that the both substances exchange radiation with each other. Otherwise it is violently inconsistent with the laws of both classical physics and quantum physics.

So you say, and yet, you can't show a single observation or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from a cooler object to a warmer object even though we are able to measure minute energy movements...according to flacalten, we can measure movement as small as a single photon.

you can't show a single observation or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from a cooler object to a warmer object

Still waiting for you to explain the Sun-Corona flaw to your theory.

 

[SSDD]

.

What does it sense to trigger the change?

It senses a temperature change you idiot...either warmer or cooler and then converts the amount and rate of change across the array into an image...if the object is cooler then what is being measured is how much and how quickly the array is cooling...

It senses a temperature change

How?

Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?

No you moron....if the object is cooler than the sensor array, then 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....tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy.

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

Look what I found on page 3.

That's so weird, because I've always said that the warmer emitter can't tell the temperature of the cooler target in order to adjust the "dimmer switch" if the cooler target never emits.

This neat book, not sure if it's the same one you supposedly took your passage from, says there is always a transmission of energy.

And on page 106.......

106 3 Physical Principles of Sensing

Fig. 3.43. Thermal radiation exchange between an object and a thermal radiation sensor.
from the sensor toward the object must also be taken into account. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself). The surface of the sensor which faces the object has emissivity εs (and, subsequently, reflectivity ρs =1−εs). Because the sensor is only partly absorptive, not the entire flux, .b0, is absorbed and utilized. A part of it, .ba, is absorbed by the sensor and another part, .br, is reflected (Fig. 3.43) back toward to object.20 The reflected flux is proportional to the sensor’s coefficient of reflectivity:

It's weird, the nice diagram shows energy going both ways.......not one way

tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Positive means the net flux flows toward the sensor, in other words, the target is hotter.
That means the sensor receives more energy from the target than it sends toward the target.
Negative means the net flux flows toward the target, in other words, the target is cooler.
That means the sensor sends more energy to the target than it receives from the target

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

Thanks, great link.

Is it actually the source SSDD was referencing?

Poor SSDD. He hunts around for anything that could be twisted out of context to appear to be agreeing with him, only to be embarrassed once again when the whole story comes out.

You guys are a laugh...getting your knickers in a twist over yet another passage that doesn't support your belief...When did I ever say that EM fields don't propagate outward? You are becoming a mamooth clone ian....sure hope your magical beliefs are worth sacrificing anything like actual character that you might have ever possessed.

Reminder...it is you guys who are talking and talking and can't seem to manage a single piece of observed measured evidence to support your claims while every measurement and observation ever made, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself supports my position...The idea that you think you are winning is truly laughable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.

What does it sense to trigger the change?

It senses a temperature change you idiot...either warmer or cooler and then converts the amount and rate of change across the array into an image...if the object is cooler then what is being measured is how much and how quickly the array is cooling...

It senses a temperature change

How?

Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?

No you moron....if the object is cooler than the sensor array, then 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....tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy.

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

Look what I found on page 3.

That's so weird, because I've always said that the warmer emitter can't tell the temperature of the cooler target in order to adjust the "dimmer switch" if the cooler target never emits.

This neat book, not sure if it's the same one you supposedly took your passage from, says there is always a transmission of energy.

And on page 106.......

106 3 Physical Principles of Sensing

Fig. 3.43. Thermal radiation exchange between an object and a thermal radiation sensor.
from the sensor toward the object must also be taken into account. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself). The surface of the sensor which faces the object has emissivity εs (and, subsequently, reflectivity ρs =1−εs). Because the sensor is only partly absorptive, not the entire flux, .b0, is absorbed and utilized. A part of it, .ba, is absorbed by the sensor and another part, .br, is reflected (Fig. 3.43) back toward to object.20 The reflected flux is proportional to the sensor’s coefficient of reflectivity:

It's weird, the nice diagram shows energy going both ways.......not one way

tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Positive means the net flux flows toward the sensor, in other words, the target is hotter.
That means the sensor receives more energy from the target than it sends toward the target.
Negative means the net flux flows toward the target, in other words, the target is cooler.
That means the sensor sends more energy to the target than it receives from the target

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

Thanks, great link.

Is it actually the source SSDD was referencing?

Poor SSDD. He hunts around for anything that could be twisted out of context to appear to be agreeing with him, only to be embarrassed once again when the whole story comes out.

You guys are a laugh...getting your knickers in a twist over yet another passage that doesn't support your belief...When did I ever say that EM fields don't propagate outward? You are becoming a mamooth clone ian....sure hope your magical beliefs are worth sacrificing anything like actual character that you might have ever possessed.

Reminder...it is you guys who are talking and talking and can't seem to manage a single piece of observed measured evidence to support your claims while every measurement and observation ever made, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself supports my position...The idea that you think you are winning is truly laughable.

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.

 

[IanC]

Reminder...it is you guys who are talking and talking and can't seem to manage a single piece of observed measured evidence to support your claims while every measurement and observation ever made, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself supports my position...The idea that you think you are winning is truly laughable.

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.

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.

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.

And that example uses matter, a much more intuative property than radiation. Radiation does not interact with other radiation, only with matter. There is no mechanism for cancelling out to result in a single net movement. Once created, radiation continues to exist until it reaches its destination. (Virtual photons carrying force instead of just energy is far beyond the scope of this conversation)

Radiation must be a combination of gross flows in all directions that results in a net exchange. Otherwise, different laws of physics are confounded.

I couldn't be bothered to do the calculations but let's say the net radiation exchange is equal between objects at (0K-200K), (270K-275K) and (350K- 350.5K). Even though the power is equal, the quality of radiation is not. One is delivering far IR, then mid IR, and near IR. The ability to cause specific changes typically has threshold energy values needed. An extra watt of far IR may result in warming but it will not trigger detection via the photoelectric effect. A watt of near IR may trigger the PE effect but it will not power photosynthesis. Entropy is being gained every time high quality radiation is transformed into low quality IR. This increase in entropy can be harnessed in part to perform work, or not. It still results in more disorder.

SSDD's version of physics is devoid of taking entropy in to account. So are many climate models. Many of the models consider only the balance of energy, that an extra watt of IR is equivalent to an extra watt of solar insolation. They are not.

Until SSDD drops the 150 year old first approximation version of the SLoT, and replaces it with the more recent and powerful explanation derived from entropy, he will be wrong in many of the finer details.

 

[Wuwei]

So you say, and yet, you can't show a single observation or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from a cooler object to a warmer object even though we are able to measure minute energy movements...according to flacalten, we can measure movement as small as a single photon.

You have said that constantly in reply to almost every radiation post. It means absolutely nothing in the case of radiation physics. Nothing. Yet that is the false mantra you make while you hide in your house of straw without any real physics argument. We already gave two strong counter examples in the detection of the CMB, and the sun's corona.

Try to come out of your straw house and present an argument or experiment that shows that black body radiation can't strike a warmer object. It's long overdue. Otherwise you are stuck with your smart photons.

 

[Wuwei]

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

Here’s another interesting passage from page 103:
.....Thus, a vibrating particle is a source of an electromagnetic field which propagates outwardly with the speed of light and is governed by the laws of optics."

You guys are making SSDD shoot himself in the foot again. By now his foot is already riddled with bullet holes.

Who said that EM fields don't propagate outward... Alas, it is your feet that are full of holes due to your gross misunderstandings of not only physics, but of instrumentation.

Who said that EM fields don't propagate outward.
You did... when there is a nearby warmer body.

I don't see anything there about them propagating outward in all directions even if their surroundings are warmer than themselves.

Just tell me why the handbook would bother to mention the temperature of the surroundings when this is a handbook for scientists and engineers? Everybody knows that makes no difference when vibrating particles radiate! Even you should know the reason even though you disagree because you don't believe believe radiation physics. That is such a trollish post.

 

[jc456]

.

What does it sense to trigger the change?

It senses a temperature change you idiot...either warmer or cooler and then converts the amount and rate of change across the array into an image...if the object is cooler then what is being measured is how much and how quickly the array is cooling...

It senses a temperature change

How?

Yes, measuring energy from photons. Right?

No you moron....if the object is cooler than the sensor array, then 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....tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy.

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

Look what I found on page 3.

That's so weird, because I've always said that the warmer emitter can't tell the temperature of the cooler target in order to adjust the "dimmer switch" if the cooler target never emits.

This neat book, not sure if it's the same one you supposedly took your passage from, says there is always a transmission of energy.

And on page 106.......

106 3 Physical Principles of Sensing

Fig. 3.43. Thermal radiation exchange between an object and a thermal radiation sensor.
from the sensor toward the object must also be taken into account. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself). The surface of the sensor which faces the object has emissivity εs (and, subsequently, reflectivity ρs =1−εs). Because the sensor is only partly absorptive, not the entire flux, .b0, is absorbed and utilized. A part of it, .ba, is absorbed by the sensor and another part, .br, is reflected (Fig. 3.43) back toward to object.20 The reflected flux is proportional to the sensor’s coefficient of reflectivity:

It's weird, the nice diagram shows energy going both ways.......not one way

tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Positive means the net flux flows toward the sensor, in other words, the target is hotter.
That means the sensor receives more energy from the target than it sends toward the target.
Negative means the net flux flows toward the target, in other words, the target is cooler.
That means the sensor sends more energy to the target than it receives from the target

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

Thanks, great link.

Is it actually the source SSDD was referencing?

Poor SSDD. He hunts around for anything that could be twisted out of context to appear to be agreeing with him, only to be embarrassed once again when the whole story comes out.

You guys are a laugh...getting your knickers in a twist over yet another passage that doesn't support your belief...When did I ever say that EM fields don't propagate outward? You are becoming a mamooth clone ian....sure hope your magical beliefs are worth sacrificing anything like actual character that you might have ever possessed.

Reminder...it is you guys who are talking and talking and can't seem to manage a single piece of observed measured evidence to support your claims while every measurement and observation ever made, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself supports my position...The idea that you think you are winning is truly laughable.

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It senses a temperature change you idiot...either warmer or cooler and then converts the amount and rate of change across the array into an image...if the object is cooler then what is being measured is how much and how quickly the array is cooling...

It senses a temperature change

How?

No you moron....if the object is cooler than the sensor array, then 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....tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy.

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

Look what I found on page 3.

That's so weird, because I've always said that the warmer emitter can't tell the temperature of the cooler target in order to adjust the "dimmer switch" if the cooler target never emits.

This neat book, not sure if it's the same one you supposedly took your passage from, says there is always a transmission of energy.

And on page 106.......

106 3 Physical Principles of Sensing

Fig. 3.43. Thermal radiation exchange between an object and a thermal radiation sensor.
from the sensor toward the object must also be taken into account. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself). The surface of the sensor which faces the object has emissivity εs (and, subsequently, reflectivity ρs =1−εs). Because the sensor is only partly absorptive, not the entire flux, .b0, is absorbed and utilized. A part of it, .ba, is absorbed by the sensor and another part, .br, is reflected (Fig. 3.43) back toward to object.20 The reflected flux is proportional to the sensor’s coefficient of reflectivity:

It's weird, the nice diagram shows energy going both ways.......not one way

tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Positive means the net flux flows toward the sensor, in other words, the target is hotter.
That means the sensor receives more energy from the target than it sends toward the target.
Negative means the net flux flows toward the target, in other words, the target is cooler.
That means the sensor sends more energy to the target than it receives from the target

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

Thanks, great link.

Is it actually the source SSDD was referencing?

Poor SSDD. He hunts around for anything that could be twisted out of context to appear to be agreeing with him, only to be embarrassed once again when the whole story comes out.

You guys are a laugh...getting your knickers in a twist over yet another passage that doesn't support your belief...When did I ever say that EM fields don't propagate outward? You are becoming a mamooth clone ian....sure hope your magical beliefs are worth sacrificing anything like actual character that you might have ever possessed.

Reminder...it is you guys who are talking and talking and can't seem to manage a single piece of observed measured evidence to support your claims while every measurement and observation ever made, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself supports my position...The idea that you think you are winning is truly laughable.

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?

 

[jc456]

It senses a temperature change

How?
Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy.

http://www.kelm.ftn.uns.ac.rs/liter...ModernSensorsPhysicsDesignAndApplications.pdf

Look what I found on page 3.

That's so weird, because I've always said that the warmer emitter can't tell the temperature of the cooler target in order to adjust the "dimmer switch" if the cooler target never emits.

This neat book, not sure if it's the same one you supposedly took your passage from, says there is always a transmission of energy.

And on page 106.......

106 3 Physical Principles of Sensing

Fig. 3.43. Thermal radiation exchange between an object and a thermal radiation sensor.
from the sensor toward the object must also be taken into account. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux (i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself). The surface of the sensor which faces the object has emissivity εs (and, subsequently, reflectivity ρs =1−εs). Because the sensor is only partly absorptive, not the entire flux, .b0, is absorbed and utilized. A part of it, .ba, is absorbed by the sensor and another part, .br, is reflected (Fig. 3.43) back toward to object.20 The reflected flux is proportional to the sensor’s coefficient of reflectivity:

It's weird, the nice diagram shows energy going both ways.......not one way

tell me, what do you thing positive flux, and negative flux means?

Positive means the net flux flows toward the sensor, in other words, the target is hotter.
That means the sensor receives more energy from the target than it sends toward the target.
Negative means the net flux flows toward the target, in other words, the target is cooler.
That means the sensor sends more energy to the target than it receives from the target

Thanks again for that nice source. It's always fun when you link something that disproves your claims.

Thanks, great link.

Is it actually the source SSDD was referencing?

Poor SSDD. He hunts around for anything that could be twisted out of context to appear to be agreeing with him, only to be embarrassed once again when the whole story comes out.

You guys are a laugh...getting your knickers in a twist over yet another passage that doesn't support your belief...When did I ever say that EM fields don't propagate outward? You are becoming a mamooth clone ian....sure hope your magical beliefs are worth sacrificing anything like actual character that you might have ever possessed.

Reminder...it is you guys who are talking and talking and can't seem to manage a single piece of observed measured evidence to support your claims while every measurement and observation ever made, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself supports my position...The idea that you think you are winning is truly laughable.

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?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks, great link.

Is it actually the source SSDD was referencing?

Poor SSDD. He hunts around for anything that could be twisted out of context to appear to be agreeing with him, only to be embarrassed once again when the whole story comes out.

You guys are a laugh...getting your knickers in a twist over yet another passage that doesn't support your belief...When did I ever say that EM fields don't propagate outward? You are becoming a mamooth clone ian....sure hope your magical beliefs are worth sacrificing anything like actual character that you might have ever possessed.

Reminder...it is you guys who are talking and talking and can't seem to manage a single piece of observed measured evidence to support your claims while every measurement and observation ever made, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself supports my position...The idea that you think you are winning is truly laughable.

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?

 

[jc456]

You guys are a laugh...getting your knickers in a twist over yet another passage that doesn't support your belief...When did I ever say that EM fields don't propagate outward? You are becoming a mamooth clone ian....sure hope your magical beliefs are worth sacrificing anything like actual character that you might have ever possessed.

Reminder...it is you guys who are talking and talking and can't seem to manage a single piece of observed measured evidence to support your claims while every measurement and observation ever made, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself supports my position...The idea that you think you are winning is truly laughable.

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!

 

[SSDD]

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?

 

[SSDD]

You have said that constantly in reply to almost every radiation post. It means absolutely nothing in the case of radiation physics. Nothing. Yet that is the false mantra you make while you hide in your house of straw without any real physics argument. We already gave two strong counter examples in the detection of the CMB, and the sun's corona.

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.

Try to come out of your straw house and present an argument or experiment that shows that black body radiation can't strike a warmer object. It's long overdue. Otherwise you are stuck with your smart photons.

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.

 

[SSDD]

You did... when there is a nearby warmer body.

Place an ice cube in an environment warmer than itself...now show me a measurement of energy emitting from that ice cube...What does P equal.

Just tell me why the handbook would bother to mention the temperature of the surroundings when this is a handbook for scientists and engineers? Everybody knows that makes no difference when vibrating particles radiate! Even you should know the reason even though you disagree because you don't believe believe radiation physics. That is such a trollish post.

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?