We Knew Warmers Were Wacko...But Really?

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is all to hard for you, isn't it....put 0 in place of T and Tc and P=0...like I said. Now, what do you think 0 means?

No, just in the place of Tc.

Then you have a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings....nothing strange going on there. What's your point homer? As Tc increases P decreases till finally P=0.....that's the whole point that you don't seem to be able to grasp.

Then you have a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings....nothing strange going on there.

Who said anything about strange? I simply said it was the same formula.
Glad you finally realize that.

As Tc increases P decreases till finally P=0.....that's the whole point that you don't seem to be able to grasp.

And according to your silly theory, when P=0, both objects stop emitting.

 

[SSDD]

The second law says that energy won't move from cool to warm spontaneously...without some work having been done to make the move happen....a laser is the addition of work.
So it is possible for a photon to move from cooler to hotter.
Thanks for playing.

I never said that it didn't if one inputs work into the system to make it happen...that however does not include back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth which is what this entire topic is about....Energy can't move spontaneously from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth.

I had assumed (apparently incorrectly) that you actually knew what the second law said regarding the fact that energy can not move from cool to warm spontaneously....I am sure that I posted a statement of the second law that said explicitly that energy could move from cool to warm if one input work to the system.

No back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface however...that one is still a loser.

 

[SSDD]

Who said anything about strange? I simply said it was the same formula.
Glad you finally realize that.

It is the same formula if the surroundings are at zero K....as soon as you rise above zero K, however, P starts to decrease. Sorry this is all so difficult for you.

And according to your silly theory, when P=0, both objects stop emitting.

Not my theory...the SB law. That number that P represents has a meaning.....if P=0 that means something and there is no mention in the SB law about net energy transfer....P represents gross energy flow and when P=0 that means that P isn't radiating....

Again, all objects radiate when in a vacuum at 0 degrees K....things start changing when they are no longer in a vacuum at 0 degrees K as evidenced by the equation.

Is this really so far past your ability to understand?

 

[mamooth]

And to think that every university in the world with a physics department still teaches Statistical Mechanics, even though SSDD says it's all totally wrong. SSDD really needs to set them all right.

 

[jc456]

And to think that every university in the world with a physics department still teaches Statistical Mechanics, even though SSDD says it's all totally wrong. SSDD really needs to set them all right.

just curious, you can prove he's wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And to think that every university in the world with a physics department still teaches Statistical Mechanics, even though SSDD says it's all totally wrong. SSDD really needs to set them all right.

just curious, you can prove he's wrong?

If his claims about photons aren't enough for you........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The second law says that energy won't move from cool to warm spontaneously...without some work having been done to make the move happen....a laser is the addition of work.
So it is possible for a photon to move from cooler to hotter.
Thanks for playing.

I never said that it didn't if one inputs work into the system to make it happen...that however does not include back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth which is what this entire topic is about....Energy can't move spontaneously from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth.

I had assumed (apparently incorrectly) that you actually knew what the second law said regarding the fact that energy can not move from cool to warm spontaneously....I am sure that I posted a statement of the second law that said explicitly that energy could move from cool to warm if one input work to the system.

No back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface however...that one is still a loser.

I never said that it didn't if one inputs work into the system to make it happen...

So a photon, or wave, from a candle flame can travel to the much hotter Sun, because work was done?

No back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface however...that one is still a loser.

No work was done to heat the atmosphere? Are you sure?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who said anything about strange? I simply said it was the same formula.
Glad you finally realize that.

It is the same formula if the surroundings are at zero K....as soon as you rise above zero K, however, P starts to decrease. Sorry this is all so difficult for you.

And according to your silly theory, when P=0, both objects stop emitting.

Not my theory...the SB law. That number that P represents has a meaning.....if P=0 that means something and there is no mention in the SB law about net energy transfer....P represents gross energy flow and when P=0 that means that P isn't radiating....

Again, all objects radiate when in a vacuum at 0 degrees K....things start changing when they are no longer in a vacuum at 0 degrees K as evidenced by the equation.

Is this really so far past your ability to understand?

Not my theory...the SB law.

The SB law says they stop emitting? Show me.

there is no mention in the SB law about net energy transfer....

You're claiming that old Science article I referenced was wrong?
You'd think they'd know at least as much as you, especially back in the 60s, when AGW wasn't confusing the issue.

 

[IanC]

thermodynamic theory says every object of sufficient size gives off radiation proportional to its temperature. there is no arbitrary choice of whether to radiate or not.

the power, energy loss (gain) per second per meter squared, is a summation of object radiation loss minus object radiation gain from the surroundings. both the object and the surroundings radiate according to their temperatures.

in the special case where both the object and the surroundings are the same temperature, both continue to fully radiate according to their temperature but the power is zero because they are both gaining energy as fast as they are radiating it away.

SSDD purposely confuses the basic principle of 'every object radiates according to its temperature' with the equation for Power/energy transfer that is dependent on a temperature differential. he declares that the power describes the actual radiation, eg the warmer object emits less than the basic principle demands and the cooler object doesnt radiate at all.

SSDD cannot let go of this folly because if he did then his worldview of thermodynamics would fall apart.

my first sentence contained 'every object of sufficient size'. temperature is the measurement of average kinetic energy. obviously a single molecule can have any speed but it is not a 'temperature'. only when large amounts of molecules are present do you get the collisions necessary to produce the 'radiation proportional to its temperature'.

 

[SSDD]

And to think that every university in the world with a physics department still teaches Statistical Mechanics, even though SSDD says it's all totally wrong. SSDD really needs to set them all right.

Actually, they don't hairball...a survey of physics texts reveals that physics for the soft sciences teaches back radiation..physics for the hard sciences does not.

 

[SSDD]

No work was done to heat the atmosphere? Are you sure?

Yep...sorry you aren't. Absorption and emission do not constitute work. I really thought that you had some clue about this and were just being obtuse. The more we talk, the more apparent it becomes that you really don't have a clue.

work has a meaning.....force times distance??.....ever hear of it? Absorption and emission are not work....I really do apologize for some of the things I have been thinking about you and the apparent dishonest nature of your posts....I see now that what I was mistaking for dishonesty was, in fact, abject ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

The SB law says they stop emitting? Show me.

Already did...multiple times. Sorry you failed to understand. One more time....as if showing you again after all these times will make a difference. This is real simple math so you shouldn't have a problem with it, although you have repeatedly shown that you do. Make T any positive number you wish....make Tc the same number....the resulting number within the parentheses will be zero.....the fact that the zero is in parenthesis in the equation means that you multiply the other parts of the equation by the number in the parentheses....zero times anything equals zero. So when you have T = to Tc P=0. And again, the SB law doesn't mention net energy flows anywhere The SB law is a statement on the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area)...

You're claiming that old Science article I referenced was wrong?

Actually, you and the science article are claiming that the SB law is wrong...I didn't see any evidence there that it was wrong...and surely something as big as learning that one of the laws of physics was wrong would have made headlines......can you show me a reputable source stating that the SB law is wrong?

You'd think they'd know at least as much as you, especially back in the 60s, when AGW wasn't confusing the issue.

You would think so...wouldn't you.[/QUOTE]

 

[SSDD]

thermodynamic theory says every object of sufficient size gives off radiation proportional to its temperature. there is no arbitrary choice of whether to radiate or not.

When the object is a black body in a vacuum at 0 degrees K. You guys always fail to mention that fact. Once you are no longer talking about a black body and it is out of the vacuum and the surroundings are above 0 degrees K...the equation clearly shows that things begin to change,

in the special case where both the object and the surroundings are the same temperature, both continue to fully radiate according to their temperature but the power is zero because they are both gaining energy as fast as they are radiating it away.

Yeah....heard it before. The thing is though, that according to the SB law, P does not represent "net" energy flow.

SSDD purposely confuses the basic principle of 'every object radiates according to its temperature' with the equation for Power/energy transfer that is dependent on a temperature differential. he declares that the power describes the actual radiation, eg the warmer object emits less than the basic principle demands and the cooler object doesnt radiate at all.

The Stefan Boltzmann Law

The Stefan-Boltzman Law for Black Body Radiation

http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf

Here is an informative clip from that last one

This is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

Note that the SB law is, in fact, talking about rates of outward radiative energy....not net energy flows or any other addendum you would care to add to the law in an effort to make it support your beliefs. Simply rate of outward energy flow....no more...no less.

SSDD cannot let go of this folly because if he did then his worldview of thermodynamics would fall apart.

It isn't me, Ian, who is adding words like net, and statistical to the actual statements of the law in an effort to support my argument...that is you and yours. I am satisfied with the laws as they are stated and until you and yours actually prove that they are wrong, they will remain as they are and state what they state and you will still be making statements that don't agree with the laws. When QM actually proves that energy movement is a net proposition, the laws of thermodynamics will be changed and rewritten to reflect that proof. As of now, they don't which makes me right and you wrong.

 

[IanC]

did you actually read that third link? the lecture? hahahahaha. OMG that's so funny. it is polar opposite to what SSDD says. hahahahahahaha.

 

[SSDD]

did you actually read that third link? the lecture? hahahahaha. OMG that's so funny. it is polar opposite to what SSDD says. hahahahahahaha.

Have to wonder if you read it ian....or read into it what you wish it said.

 

[Crick]

Does anyone here think SSDD's interpretation of basic thermodynamics is correct?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

thermodynamic theory says every object of sufficient size gives off radiation proportional to its temperature. there is no arbitrary choice of whether to radiate or not.

When the object is a black body in a vacuum at 0 degrees K. You guys always fail to mention that fact. Once you are no longer talking about a black body and it is out of the vacuum and the surroundings are above 0 degrees K...the equation clearly shows that things begin to change,

in the special case where both the object and the surroundings are the same temperature, both continue to fully radiate according to their temperature but the power is zero because they are both gaining energy as fast as they are radiating it away.

Yeah....heard it before. The thing is though, that according to the SB law, P does not represent "net" energy flow.

SSDD purposely confuses the basic principle of 'every object radiates according to its temperature' with the equation for Power/energy transfer that is dependent on a temperature differential. he declares that the power describes the actual radiation, eg the warmer object emits less than the basic principle demands and the cooler object doesnt radiate at all.

The Stefan Boltzmann Law

The Stefan-Boltzman Law for Black Body Radiation

http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf

Here is an informative clip from that last one

This is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

Note that the SB law is, in fact, talking about rates of outward radiative energy....not net energy flows or any other addendum you would care to add to the law in an effort to make it support your beliefs. Simply rate of outward energy flow....no more...no less.

SSDD cannot let go of this folly because if he did then his worldview of thermodynamics would fall apart.

It isn't me, Ian, who is adding words like net, and statistical to the actual statements of the law in an effort to support my argument...that is you and yours. I am satisfied with the laws as they are stated and until you and yours actually prove that they are wrong, they will remain as they are and state what they state and you will still be making statements that don't agree with the laws. When QM actually proves that energy movement is a net proposition, the laws of thermodynamics will be changed and rewritten to reflect that proof. As of now, they don't which makes me right and you wrong.

This is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

Did you notice, it doesn't say, "Unless a warmer object is nearby, in that case it stops radiating" It also failed to say, "Unless an object above 0K is nearby, in which case it emits more slowly"

 

[SSDD]

Does anyone here think SSDD's interpretation of basic thermodynamics is correct?

That's the thing...I seem to be the only one who is not interpreting.... I take the statement of the law at face value...without adding to it or rewriting it in any way....it is you guys who are interpreting....not me.

 

[SSDD]

This is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

Did you notice, it doesn't say, "Unless a warmer object is nearby, in that case it stops radiating" It also failed to say, "Unless an object above 0K is nearby, in which case it emits more slowly"

They assume you can grasp the equation one uses when the radiator is not a perfect black body in a vacuum at 0 degrees K....in which P decreases as the difference between T and Tc decreases till P = 0.


Again...sorry this is all so difficult for you to understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

did you actually read that third link? the lecture? hahahahaha. OMG that's so funny. it is polar opposite to what SSDD says. hahahahahahaha.

Think of a small area element at the surface of the sun: It emits radiation with the intensity of
B(T)
in all direction, thereby producing a total energy flux of 4
B(T), where 4 is the total solid angle of a sphere enclosing that area element. Note, however, that a half of this energy flux goes back into the interior of the sun.

Holy crap! Energy moving from cooler to hotter.
And from his own link.