The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

Your comments once again show quite clearly that you have never had a course in thermodynamics or heat transfer. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You've been refuted a hundred ways from Sunday. But you insist. Energy movement in the universe is all fucking magic to you. What a pathetic moron you are.

Actually, I have never been refuted...and the only attempts you wack jobs have ever made have been with unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica models...hardly a refutation of anything....it is, however, a sad commentary on the state of science when models are accepted over observed reality.....

 

[Wuwei]

Actually, I have never been refuted.

In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous. They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.

A lightstick uses chemiluminescence... Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch?

That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.

You have been refuted whether you know it or not; whether you believe it or not.

..and the only attempts you wack jobs have ever made have been with unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica models.

Nope the lightstick is observable, measurable, and testable, and it was used thousands of times by kids who know nothing about mathematical models.

it is, however, a sad commentary on the state of science when models are accepted over observed reality.....

It is a sad commentary on the state of your hubris to think you know more than 372 thousand physicists.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..

Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.

There are no external power inputs to a penlight. Look at this and tell me where you see an external power source.
penlight at DuckDuckGo

It is clear that your understanding of the topic is so far from the level of the conversation, having principles explained to you is simply a waste of time. I suppose nothing less than a direct response regarding the LED penlight will get through to you..and at this point, even that is doubtful.

So again, I contacted some professors of physics with this note:

Greetings Dr.XXX,

My name is XXX XXDX and if I may, I would like to ask a physics question. Can any process that is connected to a battery, or other power source be considered to be a spontaneous process. An LED penlight for example….can the light emitted from the LED be considered a spontaneous process?

Thank you in advance for sharing your time and knowledge.

XXXXXX


The first response was fromJoachim (Jimmy) Raeder, Professor of Physics, Department of Physics & Space Science Center
University of New Hampshire:

He Responds:

Nope, you need to press a button. Nothing spontaneous about that.

Spontaneous processes usually happen on the quantum mechanical level, like the decay of a radioactive atom nucleus.

Joachim (Jimmy) Raeder
Professor of Physics, Department of Physics & Space Science Center
University of New Hampshire
245G Morse Hall, 8 College Rd, Durham, NH 03824-3525
voice: 603-862-3412 mobile: 603-502-9505 assistant: 603-862-1431
e-mail: J.Raeder@unh.edu
WWW: http://mhd.sr.unh.edu/~jraeder/tmp.homepage

I believe I pointed out that error in your thinking in post 417 where I pointed out that you would have to press a button which is not a spontaneous act...to which you, in your abject ignorance replied, put a piece of tape over the button if that bothers me....clearly unable to see that there is nothing more spontaneous about putting a piece of tape over the button than there was in pressing the button in the first place..and you might go back to assembling the penlight in the first place...what was spontaneous about that?

Thanks for Professor Raeder's email.
Seems like a nice guy. Here is a portion of my discussion with him

Me:

Hello Professor Raeder

Sorry to disturb you.
I was wondering if you could help me with a simple physics issue.
During a discussion of global warming, someone claimed that back radiation
didn't exist because radiation is not "allowed" to move from the cooler atmosphere
to the warmer surface of the Earth, because that would violate the 2nd Law.

During this discussion it was also claimed that radiation only ever flows one way between two objects
and that if these objects ever achieve equilibrium, both objects cease radiating altogether.

Any light that you could shed on this issue would be greatly appreciated.
Please enjoy your weekend and sorry again to intrude.

Professor Raeder:

I have heard that one before.
There are two issues with this argument.
First, this is not black (or grey) body thermal radiation.
If there are two bodies in a closed system, that is, some box around them that lets no energy in or out, heat will always flow from the hotter to the cooler body,
also if it is transported by radiation, i.e., photons.
However, once an equilibrium is reached, that is, both bodies have the same temperature, radiation still flows, but at the same rate in both directions...….

an IR photon leaving Earth will always go up, whereas the re-radiated photon has a 50% chance of going down.
Again, it’s more complicated, because the photon could be absorbed and re-radiated multiple times.
Still, some flow down.
Note, that in a real glass green house the temperature of the glass does not matter either,
and on an atomic level the reflection of IR photons by glass is exactly the same (oscillating dipoles) as with greenhouse gases.

Here's my follow up email...…

Me:

One last small detail, if you could.
The same person who believes downward IR violates the 2nd Law also thinks
this Stefan-Boltzmann formula only shows one-way flow of energy.

That is, the warmer object in a two object system "dials down" emissions
based on the temperature of the cooler object, rather than both objects radiating at the same time.

Professor Raeder:

No, it does not dial down emissions.
Otherwise “thermal imaging” would not be possible, or take the remote thermometers. Even if the inside of a room
is in thermal equilibrium, it still picks up the emissions from whatever you point it at.
The above equation just states that the net power flow P is the difference between the emitted power (T^4 part) and the absorbed part (T_c^4 part).


See, if you ask the proper questions, you can get useful answers.

 

[Wuwei]

See, if you ask the proper questions, you can get useful answers.

Kudos to you. I'm impressed that you did that. I was thinking of doing something similar, but didn't want to bother. I did actually get the professor in charge of the Hyperphysics site to add a caveat to his page covering the 2nd law, but SSDD dismissed that as opinion.

SSDD has shot himself in the foot many times, but never did realize it. This time he shot his foot with a nuke and has to take note. It would be very hard for him to smugly dismiss a person that he dared you to contact.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See, if you ask the proper questions, you can get useful answers.

Kudos to you. I'm impressed that you did that. I was thinking of doing something similar, but didn't want to bother. I did actually get the professor in charge of the Hyperphysics site to add a caveat to his page covering the 2nd law, but SSDD dismissed that as opinion.

SSDD has shot himself in the foot many times, but never did realize it. This time he shot his foot with a nuke and has to take note. It would be very hard for him to smugly dismiss a person that he dared you to contact.

Based on his previous reactions when his sources ended up refuting his claims
(Handbook of Modern Sensors, Hyperphysics etc.) he'll just ignore the info and double down on his epicycles.

 

[Wuwei]

Based on his previous reactions when his sources ended up refuting his claims
(Handbook of Modern Sensors, Hyperphysics etc.) he'll just ignore the info and double down on his epicycles.

You are probably right. However I bookmarked this page to remind him when the next epicycle comes. Nobody will ever get him to agree with today's science. He's basically a troll with no self respect. But the basic idea is to play his game to let people know his mind is governed by his butt, and specifically that his idea of science is totally wrong. His minions will also probably follow him because they don't understand science either.

 

[SSDD]

Professor Raeder:

No, it does not dial down emissions.
Otherwise “thermal imaging” would not be possible, or take the remote thermometers. Even if the inside of a room[./quote]

Congratulations...you found an academic that is fooled by instrumentation because he doesn't understand how it works...climate science is rife with them, I see no reason academia wouldn't be either....I suppose he believes that the sensor in the IR camera is receiving cold radiation from the cooler object...much like Picted thought that cold radiation caused warmer objects to cool down.

No spontaneous process results in the movement of energy, in any form, from a cool object to a warm object. If you believe you are observing such a movement, you are invariably wrong. You may lack the education to understand why the movement from cool to warm is not a spontaneous process, and clearly some bars are set far lower than others with you yahoos thinking that a flashlight is a spontaneous process, but if you have sufficient knowledge, then you will be able to point out why the apparent movement of energy from cool to warm is not a spontaneous process.

One thing to keep in mind is that all non spontaneous processes in nature are proceeded by a spontaneous process...do I expect you to know what that means? Of course not..you think a flashlight is a spontaneous process.

But do let me know when the second law of thermodynamics is rewritten to exclude electromagnetic radiation...that should be shortly after you provide some observed evidence of spontaneous two way energy movement.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, I have never been refuted.

In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous. They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.

A lightstick uses chemiluminescence... Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch?

That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.

You have been refuted whether you know it or not; whether you believe it or not.

No spontaneous process results in energy moving from a cool object to a warm object. If you believe you are seeing such a thing, you are wrong. If you have sufficient knowledge, you can examine any apparent movement of energy from cool to warm and discover why it is not spontaneous. Can I examine every possible instance of apparent energy movement from cool to warm and determine why it didn't happen spontaneously? No, I can't. And you certainly can't..hell, you think a flashlight is a spontaneous process.

Do let me know when they change the second law of thermodynamics to exclude some forms of electromagnetic radiation...it should happen shortly after some actual observations are made of spontaneous two way energy movement...goobers believing they are seeing spontaneous two way energy movement and being fooled by their lack of knowledge into believing that it is spontaneous probably won't get the second law changed.

And pointing out that any number of physicists believe in a model is hardly evidence that the model is right. By that token, you must agree that Christianity is absolutely correct because how many million believers are there?...follow that closely with islam...by your standards, either has enough believers to be considered absolutely correct. The number of people who believe in a thing has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

 

[SSDD]

Based on his previous reactions when his sources ended up refuting his claims
(Handbook of Modern Sensors, Hyperphysics etc.) he'll just ignore the info and double down on his epicycles.

You are probably right. However I bookmarked this page to remind him when the next epicycle comes. Nobody will ever get him to agree with today's science. He's basically a troll with no self respect. But the basic idea is to play his game to let people know his mind is governed by his butt, and specifically that his idea of science is totally wrong. His minions will also probably follow him because they don't understand science either.

I need no reminder that plenty of smart people are fooled by insturmentation....nor do I need a reminder that you believe that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and I already know that no spontaneous process results in the movement of energy from cool to warm....I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process. This happens over and over and over in biological systems. It is what leads creationists to believe that life itself could not arise on its own because of the second law of thermodynamics. They see apparent order arising from chaos and fail to se that every non spontaneous process is proceeded by a spontaneous process.

In short.. they are fooled...just like you. Don't feel alone, you have plenty of company.

 

[SSDD]

See, if you ask the proper questions, you can get useful answers.

Kudos to you. I'm impressed that you did that. I was thinking of doing something similar, but didn't want to bother. I did actually get the professor in charge of the Hyperphysics site to add a caveat to his page covering the 2nd law, but SSDD dismissed that as opinion.

SSDD has shot himself in the foot many times, but never did realize it. This time he shot his foot with a nuke and has to take note. It would be very hard for him to smugly dismiss a person that he dared you to contact.

Based on his previous reactions when his sources ended up refuting his claims
(Handbook of Modern Sensors, Hyperphysics etc.) he'll just ignore the info and double down on his epicycles.

Sorry, that picture didn't refute anything...it was an illustration of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...nothing more and nothing less. I am still waiting on that single observed and measured instance of spontaneous two way energy movement.

The mere fact that you think an illustration of a model is refutation of anything is just more evidence of how easily you are fooled.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Professor Raeder:

No, it does not dial down emissions.
Otherwise “thermal imaging” would not be possible, or take the remote thermometers. Even if the inside of a room

Congratulations...you found an academic that is fooled by instrumentation because he doesn't understand how it works...climate science is rife with them, I see no reason academia wouldn't be either....I suppose he believes that the sensor in the IR camera is receiving cold radiation from the cooler object...much like Picted thought that cold radiation caused warmer objects to cool down.

No spontaneous process results in the movement of energy, in any form, from a cool object to a warm object. If you believe you are observing such a movement, you are invariably wrong. You may lack the education to understand why the movement from cool to warm is not a spontaneous process, and clearly some bars are set far lower than others with you yahoos thinking that a flashlight is a spontaneous process, but if you have sufficient knowledge, then you will be able to point out why the apparent movement of energy from cool to warm is not a spontaneous process.

One thing to keep in mind is that all non spontaneous processes in nature are proceeded by a spontaneous process...do I expect you to know what that means? Of course not..you think a flashlight is a spontaneous process.

But do let me know when the second law of thermodynamics is rewritten to exclude electromagnetic radiation...that should be shortly after you provide some observed evidence of spontaneous two way energy movement.

Congratulations...you found an academic that is fooled by instrumentation because he doesn't understand how it works...climate science is rife with them, I see no reason academia wouldn't be either.

I'm still waiting for you to find an academic who agrees with your unique viewpoint.

Maybe you should send some variation of my questions to the other academics you previously contacted?
Unless you prefer to be alone in your confusion?

You may lack the education to understand why the movement from cool to warm is not a spontaneous process

Dr Raeder too.

You notice his statement about equilibrium?

But do let me know when the second law of thermodynamics is rewritten to exclude electromagnetic radiation...

But the free flow of radiation in no way violates the second law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, I have never been refuted.

In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous. They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.

A lightstick uses chemiluminescence... Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch?

That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.

You have been refuted whether you know it or not; whether you believe it or not.

No spontaneous process results in energy moving from a cool object to a warm object. If you believe you are seeing such a thing, you are wrong. If you have sufficient knowledge, you can examine any apparent movement of energy from cool to warm and discover why it is not spontaneous. Can I examine every possible instance of apparent energy movement from cool to warm and determine why it didn't happen spontaneously? No, I can't. And you certainly can't..hell, you think a flashlight is a spontaneous process.

Do let me know when they change the second law of thermodynamics to exclude some forms of electromagnetic radiation...it should happen shortly after some actual observations are made of spontaneous two way energy movement...goobers believing they are seeing spontaneous two way energy movement and being fooled by their lack of knowledge into believing that it is spontaneous probably won't get the second law changed.

And pointing out that any number of physicists believe in a model is hardly evidence that the model is right. By that token, you must agree that Christianity is absolutely correct because how many million believers are there?...follow that closely with islam...by your standards, either has enough believers to be considered absolutely correct. The number of people who believe in a thing has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

If you have sufficient knowledge, you can examine any apparent movement of energy from cool to warm and discover why it is not spontaneous.

Ohhh, sounds interesting.
So explain why cool matter on the Sun's surface can emit toward hotter matter in the corona.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See, if you ask the proper questions, you can get useful answers.

Kudos to you. I'm impressed that you did that. I was thinking of doing something similar, but didn't want to bother. I did actually get the professor in charge of the Hyperphysics site to add a caveat to his page covering the 2nd law, but SSDD dismissed that as opinion.

SSDD has shot himself in the foot many times, but never did realize it. This time he shot his foot with a nuke and has to take note. It would be very hard for him to smugly dismiss a person that he dared you to contact.

Based on his previous reactions when his sources ended up refuting his claims
(Handbook of Modern Sensors, Hyperphysics etc.) he'll just ignore the info and double down on his epicycles.

Sorry, that picture didn't refute anything...it was an illustration of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...nothing more and nothing less. I am still waiting on that single observed and measured instance of spontaneous two way energy movement.

The mere fact that you think an illustration of a model is refutation of anything is just more evidence of how easily you are fooled.

Sorry, that picture didn't refute anything...

It's just another instance of a source you linked, to back up your claims, actually disagreeing with your claims.
That seems to happen a lot.

it was an illustration of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model

That reminds me, any other sources you want to share to back up your one-way only flow?

The mere fact that you think an illustration of a model is refutation of anything is just more evidence of how easily you are fooled.

Me? That was the Handbook of Modern Sensors. If they don't know how their sensors work, we're in trouble.

 

[Wuwei]

No spontaneous process results in energy moving from a cool object to a warm object. If you believe you are seeing such a thing, you are wrong. If you have sufficient knowledge, you can examine any apparent movement of energy from cool to warm and discover why it is not spontaneous. Can I examine every possible instance of apparent energy movement from cool to warm and determine why it didn't happen spontaneously? No, I can't. And you certainly can't..hell, you think a flashlight is a spontaneous process.

Do let me know when they change the second law of thermodynamics to exclude some forms of electromagnetic radiation...it should happen shortly after some actual observations are made of spontaneous two way energy movement...goobers believing they are seeing spontaneous two way energy movement and being fooled by their lack of knowledge into believing that it is spontaneous probably won't get the second law changed.

No spontaneous process results in energy moving from a cool object to a warm object.​

You must have forgotten. A lightstick uses a spontaneous chemiluminescence process... Have you ever seen a kid with a chemical lightstick? You can hold it in your hand, and it will illuminate something too hot to touch? That refutes your claim.

And pointing out that any number of physicists believe in a model is hardly evidence that the model is right. By that token, you must agree that Christianity is absolutely correct because how many million believers are there?...follow that closely with islam...by your standards, either has enough believers to be considered absolutely correct. The number of people who believe in a thing has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

You used a metaphysics argument a few weeks ago. Now you are using a religious argument. It might be more appropriate to stick with physics if you can.

 

[Wuwei]

I need no reminder that plenty of smart people are fooled by insturmentation....nor do I need a reminder that you believe that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and I already know that no spontaneous process results in the movement of energy from cool to warm....I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process. This happens over and over and over in biological systems. It is what leads creationists to believe that life itself could not arise on its own because of the second law of thermodynamics. They see apparent order arising from chaos and fail to se that every non spontaneous process is proceeded by a spontaneous process.

Don't forget the spontaneous lightstick that most kids understand.

I see you are appealing to religious arguments again. Try to understand and use physics in action. Even kids can observe it.

 

[polarbear]

Actually, I have never been refuted.

In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous. They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.

A lightstick uses chemiluminescence... Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch?

That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.

You have been refuted whether you know it or not; whether you believe it or not.

..and the only attempts you wack jobs have ever made have been with unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica models.

Nope the lightstick is observable, measurable, and testable, and it was used thousands of times by kids who know nothing about mathematical models.

it is, however, a sad commentary on the state of science when models are accepted over observed reality.....

It is a sad commentary on the state of your hubris to think you know more than 372 thousand physicists.

Stupidity is indeed unlimited.
In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous
They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.
Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch
That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.....
And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort since it must be a spontaneous process because photons can be radiated at it.
Hahaha I would like to see how a 0.1 eV photon can bump up the energy level of an electron`s orbital to 10 eV

meaning it has been absorbed and raised the temperature as a result of a spontaneous process.
All the while you and the other idiots who agree with you have been pretending to understand not just basic physics, but also quantum physics.
The latter has to be re-written from:
Electrons in atoms and molecules can change (make transitions in) energy levels by emitting or absorbing a photon (of electromagnetic radiation), whose energy must be exactly equal to the energy difference between the two levels.
To Wuwei et al:
Electrons do not not transition to discrete energy levels but can be at any energy level and it is no longer required that the photon`s energy is exactly the same as the energy difference as previously stated having to be E2-E1=hv. We have proven this because we could shine a lightstick at a 2500 deg Tungsten filament .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, I have never been refuted.

In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous. They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.

A lightstick uses chemiluminescence... Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch?

That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.

You have been refuted whether you know it or not; whether you believe it or not.

..and the only attempts you wack jobs have ever made have been with unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematica models.

Nope the lightstick is observable, measurable, and testable, and it was used thousands of times by kids who know nothing about mathematical models.

it is, however, a sad commentary on the state of science when models are accepted over observed reality.....

It is a sad commentary on the state of your hubris to think you know more than 372 thousand physicists.

Stupidity is indeed unlimited.
In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous
They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.
Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch
That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.....
And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort since it must be a spontaneous process because photons can be radiated at it.
Hahaha I would like to see how a 0.1 eV photon can bump up the energy level of an electron`s orbital to 10 eV

meaning it has been absorbed and raised the temperature as a result of a spontaneous process.
All the while you and the other idiots who agree with you have been pretending to understand not just basic physics, but also quantum physics.
The latter has to be re-written from:
Electrons in atoms and molecules can change (make transitions in) energy levels by emitting or absorbing a photon (of electromagnetic radiation), whose energy must be exactly equal to the energy difference between the two levels.
To Wuwei et al:
Electrons do not not transition to discrete energy levels but can be at any energy level and it is no longer required that the photon`s energy is exactly the same as the energy difference as previously stated having to be E2-E1=hv. We have proven this because we could shine a lightstick at a 2500 deg Tungsten filament .

And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort

Who said a cold object can raise the temperature of a hot object? Link?

 

[Wuwei]

Stupidity is indeed unlimited.
In the literature Fluorescence, Phosphorescence, and Chemiluminescence are all said to be thermodynamically spontaneous
They all can cause emission of photons to all objects, warmer or colder.
Have you ever seen a chemical lightstick, which you can hold in your hand, and will illuminate something too hot to touch
That is spontaneous EM energy moving from a cold substance to a warmer substance. That simple everyday device solidly refutes your claim.....
And it takes that kind of stupidity to claim what you just claimed...which is that since photons from a lightstick which indeed are the product of a spontaneous process can radiate towards a hot object proves that raising the temperature of the hot object with a colder one can be achieved with no effort since it must be a spontaneous process because photons can be radiated at it.
Hahaha I would like to see how a 0.1 eV photon can bump up the energy level of an electron`s orbital to 10 eV

meaning it has been absorbed and raised the temperature as a result of a spontaneous process.
All the while you and the other idiots who agree with you have been pretending to understand not just basic physics, but also quantum physics.
The latter has to be re-written from:
Electrons in atoms and molecules can change (make transitions in) energy levels by emitting or absorbing a photon (of electromagnetic radiation), whose energy must be exactly equal to the energy difference between the two levels.
To Wuwei et al:
Electrons do not not transition to discrete energy levels but can be at any energy level and it is no longer required that the photon`s energy is exactly the same as the energy difference as previously stated having to be E2-E1=hv. We have proven this because we could shine a lightstick at a 2500 deg Tungsten filament .

You lost track of the argument. The lightstick simply proves that photons from a cold object can strike a hot object; no more no less. The proof is for SSDD who doesn't believe what a kid would believe. Furthermore SSDD disputes that chemiluminescence is spontaneous. At least you know that.

For you to claim stupidity puts you at the same level as SSDD as far as understanding the issues.

 

[Wuwei]

I need no reminder that plenty of smart people are fooled by insturmentation....nor do I need a reminder that you believe that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and I already know that no spontaneous process results in the movement of energy from cool to warm....I also know that if you are able to look deeply enough into any apparent spontaneous movement of energy from cool to warm, you will discover that every non spontaneous process ( which can result in energy moving from cool to warm) is preceded by a spontaneous process. This happens over and over and over in biological systems. It is what leads creationists to believe that life itself could not arise on its own because of the second law of thermodynamics. They see apparent order arising from chaos and fail to se that every non spontaneous process is proceeded by a spontaneous process.

You are misreading my message to Tod.
I was largely referring to the the fact that Prof Raeder (your contact) essentially said,

For a substance at temperature T₁
and the background at temperature T₂.

Emission: Rₑ = e σ T₁⁴

Absorption: Rₐ =e σ T₂⁴

The net rate of EM energy exchange:

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = e σ T₁⁴ – e σ T₂⁴ = e σ (T₁⁴ -T₂⁴) ​

That verifies what I and science know, not what you were seeking. It is a major fail for your own source of authority to deny what you have been so rabidly and falsely claiming.

 

[SSDD]

Dr Raeder too.

You notice his statement about equilibrium?

Yeah..I know what the models predict...I also know that the models aren't real and that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured evidence that even hints that they are,

But the free flow of radiation in no way violates the second law.

Maybe it doesn't violate your fantasy version of the second law, but it damned sure violates the actual version...