Where is the inverse square law ever mentioned in the SB equation?
Are you operating under the impression that the energy reaching the earth is equal in watts per square meter to the energy leaving the surface of the sun?
Actually Allen Elton had a good counterexample. A refrigerated LED pointer can be seen emitting a beam toward a hot screen. That is an example of energy flowing spontaneously from a lower temperature object to a higher temperature object. So, the only reasonable interpretation of the word “energy” is that it refers to heat energy, not EM radiation.
You get more ridiculous every time you speak.....what exactly do you think is spontaneous about a light bulb?
The italics indicate thermodynamic definitions copied from the web:
A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state.
An LED flashlight releases
free energy in a battery.
The thermodynamic free energy is the amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform. The concept is useful in the thermodynamics of chemical or thermal processes
The battery is a spontaneous chemical process.
Energy is a generalization of free energy
One wording of the second law:
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
A beam from a cooled LED flash light is a spontaneous release of energy. If the beam is aimed at a hot screen
it is energy flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
As you say, that could seem ridiculous. Does it make a mockery of the second law?
No. In this flashlight counterexample the second law is obeyed because the free energy of the battery is dissipating which increases entropy, and the hot screen cools because the feeble energy from the flashlight can't keep it warm, and heat of the nearby hotter screen warms the flashlight.
There is no interpretation of any of the words of the second law here because standard thermodynamic definitions are used.
It is only apparently ridiculous because "energy"
must not refer to photons. It must refer to heat in that context of the second law. By the same token two way radiation exchange between objects is allowed.
There are a lot of words which apply to people who think they have found a way around the second law of thermodynamics, a loophole in the second law of thermodynamics, or a form of energy that is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics. Chump, lunkhead, dope, nitwit, ignoramus, nitwit, and simpleton to name a few. Probably the most accurate word is wrong. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe you have either gotten around the second law, found a loop hole in it, or discovered that it doesn't apply to every form of energy we know of or can imagine. And you doing a happy dance, giving high fives with the likes of Allen Eltor exemplifies that special sort of stupid. The very fact that you want to be right so badly that you would hop on up on the crazy train with Allen because you though he might be on to something is, in empirical evidence of how stupid, and blind, your wish to be right has made you.
Let me reiterate, when someone seems to have found a way around the second law, or a loophole in it, or some form of energy that appears to be exempt, the first, and only thought you need have on the topic is that they are wrong. You may not see on the surface how they are wrong, the reasons they are wrong may be beyond your education, beyond your scope of knowledge, counterintuitive, or even beyond your ability to understand even if you had all the information...but wrong none the less. No one beats the second law of thermodynamics.
Lets look at all the ways you were wrong. The most glaring is that you jumped on the crazy train with Allen...but we will chalk that one up to an irrational desire to be right even if it means you have to believe the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.
An LED flashlight releases free energy in a battery.
What, exactly do you think is spontaneous about a battery. While it contains free energy..that is energy that can be used to do work, how did the energy get there? Was work done to put that energy in the battery?
The battery is a spontaneous chemical process.
Is it your desire to be right that makes you stupid, or is it that you really know so little about science. A spontaneous process is one that will occur WITHOUT any energy input from its surroundings...ie a process that will occur on its own. A bowling ball will roll down a hill, ice will melt and the water will flow downhill...a piece of iron will rust. All spontaneous processes.
A non spontaneous process, on the other hand, must have energy added from some source in order for the process to occur. Tell me wuwei, where do you think the energy in the battery came from? How did it get there?
ENERGY is a generalization of free energy
Do you really think that physical laws are written in general terms? Do you think that perhaps the first law of thermodynamics is also only talking about free energy...doesn't the statement that energy can be transformed from one from to another kind of clue you in that insofar as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned, energy is energy no matter what form it may take? Again...irrational desire to be right, or near total ignorance on the basics of thermodynamics? Could it be that you just go out and read stuff about thermodynamics regarding the topic at hand and never bothered to look at the basics?....never had any interest in learning the topic...just trying to satisfy your irrational need to be right?
A beam from a cooled LED flash light is a spontaneous release of energy. If the beam is aimed at a hot screen it is energy flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
First, was some work done to release that energy? Maybe you could apply force times distance to the finger that pushed the switch. Second the energy moving to the bulb was not there due to a spontaneous process since it required work to put the energy in there in the first place. Just because the work required to put the energy in the battery was finished, does not mean that it can be ignored. Then there is the fact that you really don't know much about LED's. Honestly, neither do I. They aren't very intuitive, but information is there to be found if you bother to look. The fact that you specifically named a cooled LED must mean that you at least found out that an uncooled LED would't work in your argument...but the fact that it is a cooled LED should have clued you into the fact that since it is cooled, you are adding in yet another thing that disqualifies this energy movement as spontaneous.
This is the part that is terribly interesting but counterintuitive and you really wouldn't know about unless this sort of thing was how you made your living , or bothered to look up just to make sure your argument was valid before you stated it in public.
As LEDs are cooled, they begin to steal energy from their environment. Who would have thought? I suppose steal isn't really the accurate word because as they are cooled to a temperature lower than that of their surroundings, energy from their environment would naturally move toward the cooler LED and this energy is converted into more photons. The process is not intuitive and pretty difficult to understand what with energy from not only the battery, but the environment itself being converted into photons..and the thermodynamic accounting that goes on involves a level of math that is beyond my ability...but the engineers working on the project assure us that at the end of the balance sheet, the neither Cooled LEDs or uncooled LEDs are flipping their proverbial noses at the second law of thermodynamics.
And of course, work is being done in order to convert all this energy from whatever source into photons which puts the brakes on any part of this is a spontaneous movement of energy.
So no...you have not provided an example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object. The word energy certainly does apply to photons since photons are by definition, the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation possible and in order to claim that the second law of thermodynamics does not cover photons, you would have to say that it does not cover radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays since whenever we observe any of these forms of energy we are observing them in the form of photons...if you believe in photons...Personally, I think they move in waves with properties we are as of yet unaware, but I digress. Photons are certainly governed by the second law of thermodynamics as is every other form of energy or potential energy we know of.
Two things:
1. Anyone who thinks he has found a way around the second law....a loophole in the second law...or a form of energy that is exempt from the second law is WRONG, whether you can immediately see where they are wrong or not.
2. Don't jump on the crazy train with someone who is clearly a nut...they speak all sorts of crazy with absolute conviction. Use your brain...they are clearly either to lazy or not able to use theirs.
Thanks for the laugh though...the visual of you and allen doing the inzone happy dance doing high fives over finding a loophole in the second law and discovering that radio, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays and gamma rays were all exempt from the second law because the second law wasn't talking about photons is priceless.
And you should question your buds...ask them why they didn't get you to delete that ridiculous post before it became engraved on the public record. Never mind...toddster has an irrational desire to be right as well..and he never checks anything.
