We Knew Warmers Were Wacko...But Really?

[Crick]

Here you go.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Idiot

 

[jc456]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The expression you provided was only for A radiator.

And as you know, everything above 0K is a radiator.
I'm kidding, it seems you don't know that.

So now you are back to weasel words pretending to know what the hell you are talking about when you, I and anyone who bothered to read your posts knows that you don't....You claimed that the expression you provided gave information about the cooler radiator which was supposed to be radiating towards the warmer radiator...your words...You said:

P = εAσT^4

The above equation shows the outgoing radiation of the cooler object.
It also shows the outgoing radiation of the warmer object.p

Regarding the cooler radiator...it shows no such thing....you don't have a clue.....and at this point, you are not much more than comic relief....pretending to know that you understand the math when you don't even know what the above expression is referencing.

You claimed that the expression you provided gave information about the cooler radiator

I claimed no such thing. How can the formula, with no specific variables in it give those variables? You're becoming less rational with every post.
Every object above 0 K radiates.

P = εAσT^4

The above formula shows the rate, when radiating in 0 K surroundings.
If you are only interested in outgoing radiation, that's what you want to look at.
If the surroundings are above 0 K, the object cools more slowly, or even warms, because the surroundings, or nearby object, is radiating toward the object.
There is no dimmer switch, magically slowing the outgoing radiation, except in your confused imaginings.

Regarding the cooler radiator...it shows no such thing

Since all objects above 0 K radiate, regardless of their surrounding,s you are incorrect.
For proof, look at your link that shows the cooler atmosphere radiating to the warmer surface of the Earth.
For more proof, look at your link that explained the Sun's surface radiating toward the hotter core of the Sun.
You could even find the old link of mine to the Science article that explained how a human body both radiates energy to the surrounding room, and receives energy radiating from the room.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here.

SSDD is confusing movement of heat with radiation. Among other things.

Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD.

Who is Crickster and what is the specific post you feel is somehow refuted by that snippet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look at your second source.

Radiation emitted by objects

All objects that have a temperature greater than 0 K emit radiation

The equations of the SB law describe a one way gross flow of energy...which is correct...a physical law or a source on the internet.

Do you have a source that says, "All objects that have a temperature greater than 0 K emit radiation, unless a warmer object is nearby"?

All I have is the SB law which says that the radiating power of P is equal to the emissivity of the radiating object * the SB constant * the area of the radiator * the temperature to the 4th power of the radiator minus the temperature to the 4th power of the temperature of the surroundings....

That statement explicitly states that the Radiating power of P becomes smaller as the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings decrease...Are you saying that the SB law is wrong?

How about a source that says, "All objects that have a temperature greater than 0 K emit radiation, unless their surroundings are warmer"?

The equations of the SB law itself aren't a good enough source for you? They say explicitly that the radiating power of P is equal to the emissivity of the radiating object * the SB constant * the area of the radiator * the temperature to the 4th power of the radiator minus the temperature to the 4th power of the temperature of the surroundings....

If you could do math you could keep raising the temperature of Tc (the radiator's surroundings) till the temperature of the surroundings were the same temperature as the object and the radiating power of the object would be zero. What other source could I provide that is more authoritative than the physical law that states exactly that?

I wonder why you've failed to produce such a source?

I wonder why you fail to recognize that the physical law itself is the supreme source...any source that doesn't agree with what the physical law says is clearly wrong...now you prove that there is a mathematical statement in the SB law regarding incoming radiation from the background which the radiator is absorbing and you win....fail to do that and again...you just fail. I may not have an advanced degree in math but I can recognize what simple equations like those associated with the SB law say...and I understand that equations associated with physics are describing things that are happening in the real world....and the equations associated with the SB law are describing gross energy flows as there is no expression describing incoming radiation from any other source altering P...

I also understand that if I say anything...or make any claim not supported by the physical law and the equations associated with it that I am wrong till such time as the law is rewritten...you are making claims that the equations of the law don't support...you are claiming that the law is incorrect....in short...you are wrong. The law itself is the ultimate source and it supports my position regardless of what any other source says.

That statement explicitly states that the Radiating power of P becomes smaller as the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings decrease...

And they say it without claiming that any object above 0 K stops radiating. Ever.

Are you saying that the SB law is wrong?

No, just you.

If you could do math you could keep raising the temperature of Tc (the radiator's surroundings) till the temperature of the surroundings were the same temperature as the object and the radiating power of the object would be zero.

Radiating power? LOL!
That's net radiated power.

Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

 

[SSDD]

Here you go.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Idiot

And still the timid little titmouse is afraid to actually engage in the conversation...if you believe that there is anything whatsoever in the SB law that speaks to radiation incoming to the radiator from another source...point it out.

 

[SSDD]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

 

[jc456]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here.

SSDD is confusing movement of heat with radiation. Among other things.

Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD.

so all of these pages of mathematical examples and things and you can't figure out who crickster is. hmmmmm

 

[jc456]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

And I agree with no back radiation. No one can prove it. so it's just magic. and has magic powers. I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement and felt obligated to let him know it.

 

[SSDD]

You claimed that the expression you provided gave information about the cooler radiator

I claimed no such thing.

Now you are just a liar...here again is your quote from post 139

P = εAσT^4

The above equation shows the outgoing radiation of the cooler object.

So yes, you claimed that the expression above gave information about the outgoing radiation of a cooler object than the radiator P. Lies aren't helping you out here.

How can the formula, with no specific variables in it give those variables? You're becoming less rational with every post.

Just quoting you as I have again...you were the one who claimed that the mathematical expression gave information about a cooler radiator...

The above formula shows the rate, when radiating in 0 K surroundings.
If you are only interested in outgoing radiation, that's what you want to look at.

Of course it is an expression of gross energy flow.

If the surroundings are above 0 K, the object cools more slowly, or even warms, because the surroundings, or nearby object, is radiating toward the object.

Again...an expression of gross energy flow....the same sort of equation could be used to calculate gross water flows over a dam....subtract the smaller arpeture of the open gate from the original arpeture and you will see that the gross flow over the dam decreases....if you want any information about net flow leaving the lake behind the dam you need to know how much water is coming in from tributary streams...

There is no dimmer switch, magically slowing the outgoing radiation, except in your confused imaginings.

You are the only one claiming magic here...I am just pointing out that the SB law is describing gross energy movement...you are the one that claims that the radiator must be doing some magic in order to obey the laws of physics.

Since all objects above 0 K radiate, regardless of their surrounding,s you are incorrect.

Sorry, but again you are wrong....the expression is for a radiator..not for the radiator and some nearby cooler object...fabricating won't help you out here...but if you think the expression is taking about more than radiator P, then by all means point out where in the expression information about some secondary radiator is to be found....mathematical expressions mean things and if there were information about a secondary radiator.....it would be evident in the expression...so where is it?

For proof, look at your link that shows the cooler atmosphere radiating to the warmer surface of the Earth.p.quote]

So again..you are saying that source is more credible than the SB law itself?

For more proof, look at your link that explained the Sun's surface radiating toward the hotter core of the Sun.

Again..you are claiming that the source is more credible than the physical law?

 

[SSDD]

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here.

SSDD is confusing movement of heat with radiation. Among other things.

The only mention of temperature in the equations we are discussing is the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings...P is not an expression of temperature....P is an expression of radiating power... I am not confused....You on the other hand are quickly tying yourself in knots resulting from your weasel speak.

The only confusion here is radiating from you...I know precisely what the SB law says and what each term in the equations represents...and none of them speak to incoming radiation from another source which would be required to formulate an equation of net energy movement.

 

[Wuwei]

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

We already covered this a while ago and you must have forgotten:

The cosmic ray background (CRB) was discovered with a radio telescope. The CRB is a cold 2.725 deg K. Radio telescopes are at ambient outdoor temperatures, averaging 15 deg C. The very cold radiation from the CRB must strike the much warmer parabola dish in order for it to strike a detector at the focal point.

This illustrates that photons from a cold substance can strike a much warmer substance and be detected to have done so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here.

SSDD is confusing movement of heat with radiation. Among other things.

Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD.

so all of these pages of mathematical examples and things and you can't figure out who crickster is. hmmmmm

If you mean Crick, just say Crick.
If you think a certain post had the link that helps poor SSDD, reply to that post.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You claimed that the expression you provided gave information about the cooler radiator

I claimed no such thing.

Now you are just a liar...here again is your quote from post 139

P = εAσT^4

The above equation shows the outgoing radiation of the cooler object.

So yes, you claimed that the expression above gave information about the outgoing radiation of a cooler object than the radiator P. Lies aren't helping you out here.

How can the formula, with no specific variables in it give those variables? You're becoming less rational with every post.

Just quoting you as I have again...you were the one who claimed that the mathematical expression gave information about a cooler radiator...

The above formula shows the rate, when radiating in 0 K surroundings.
If you are only interested in outgoing radiation, that's what you want to look at.

Of course it is an expression of gross energy flow.

If the surroundings are above 0 K, the object cools more slowly, or even warms, because the surroundings, or nearby object, is radiating toward the object.

Again...an expression of gross energy flow....the same sort of equation could be used to calculate gross water flows over a dam....subtract the smaller arpeture of the open gate from the original arpeture and you will see that the gross flow over the dam decreases....if you want any information about net flow leaving the lake behind the dam you need to know how much water is coming in from tributary streams...

There is no dimmer switch, magically slowing the outgoing radiation, except in your confused imaginings.

You are the only one claiming magic here...I am just pointing out that the SB law is describing gross energy movement...you are the one that claims that the radiator must be doing some magic in order to obey the laws of physics.

Since all objects above 0 K radiate, regardless of their surrounding,s you are incorrect.

Sorry, but again you are wrong....the expression is for a radiator..not for the radiator and some nearby cooler object...fabricating won't help you out here...but if you think the expression is taking about more than radiator P, then by all means point out where in the expression information about some secondary radiator is to be found....mathematical expressions mean things and if there were information about a secondary radiator.....it would be evident in the expression...so where is it?

For proof, look at your link that shows the cooler atmosphere radiating to the warmer surface of the Earth.p.quote]

So again..you are saying that source is more credible than the SB law itself?

For more proof, look at your link that explained the Sun's surface radiating toward the hotter core of the Sun.

Again..you are claiming that the source is more credible than the physical law?

So yes, you claimed that the expression above gave information about the outgoing radiation of a cooler object than the radiator P. Lies aren't helping you out here.

The expression is about the outgoing radiation, not the object itself. Not lying, trying to translate your confused ramblings.

Just quoting you as I have again...you were the one who claimed that the mathematical expression gave information about a cooler radiator...

Since every object above 0 K radiates, that formula can be used to calculate the outgoing radiation of any object. Whether it's all alone or near warmer objects. Or cooler objects. Or objects at the same temperature.

So again..you are saying that source is more credible than the SB law itself?

The source and the SB law are credible, your misinterpretation is not.

Again..you are claiming that the source is more credible than the physical law?

The law, all your sources and all my sources are credible.
Your belief that objects above 0 K stop radiating is not credible.
Why don't you find a link that actually, explicitly states what you claim is true?
Be careful, every source you've posted here has proven your claim was wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

And I agree with no back radiation. No one can prove it. so it's just magic. and has magic powers. I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement and felt obligated to let him know it.

And I agree with no back radiation.

Because you're ignorant.

No one can prove it.

Funny that SSDD's sources said there is.

I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement

Which link in what post do you mistakenly feel did that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here.

SSDD is confusing movement of heat with radiation. Among other things.

The only mention of temperature in the equations we are discussing is the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings...P is not an expression of temperature....P is an expression of radiating power... I am not confused....You on the other hand are quickly tying yourself in knots resulting from your weasel speak.

The only confusion here is radiating from you...I know precisely what the SB law says and what each term in the equations represents...and none of them speak to incoming radiation from another source which would be required to formulate an equation of net energy movement.

I know precisely what the SB law says

Where does it say an object above 0 K stops radiating....ever?

 

[IanC]

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here.

SSDD is confusing movement of heat with radiation. Among other things.

The only mention of temperature in the equations we are discussing is the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings...P is not an expression of temperature....P is an expression of radiating power... I am not confused....You on the other hand are quickly tying yourself in knots resulting from your weasel speak.

The only confusion here is radiating from you...I know precisely what the SB law says and what each term in the equations represents...and none of them speak to incoming radiation from another source which would be required to formulate an equation of net energy movement.

I know precisely what the SB law says

Where does it say an object above 0 K stops radiating....ever?

It doesn't. The obvious case is two objects of the same temp. Do red hot iron bars go dark if they are placed side by side? No. Still radiating kT^4.

 

[jc456]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here.

SSDD is confusing movement of heat with radiation. Among other things.

Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD.

so all of these pages of mathematical examples and things and you can't figure out who crickster is. hmmmmm

If you mean Crick, just say Crick.
If you think a certain post had the link that helps poor SSDD, reply to that post.

I did and I did!

 

[jc456]

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

We already covered this a while ago and you must have forgotten:

The cosmic ray background (CRB) was discovered with a radio telescope. The CRB is a cold 2.725 deg K. Radio telescopes are at ambient outdoor temperatures, averaging 15 deg C. The very cold radiation from the CRB must strike the much warmer parabola dish in order for it to strike a detector at the focal point.

This illustrates that photons from a cold substance can strike a much warmer substance and be detected to have done so.

I'll disagree, the warm is radiating and therefore finds the cold substance.

 

[jc456]

well, in one of the links in your link I found this snippet from a sublink:
Heat Transfer from Cold to Warmer Region

abstract:
"Although internal energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot region, it can be forced to do so by doing work on the system. Refrigerators and heat pumps are examples of heat engines which cause"

I thought this is what SSDD stated in about 20 plus posts in here. Just saying here's a link Crickster provided in an argument against SSDD that agrees with SSDD. So which is it? Crick?

I know you avoid big words, but the one of interest for me is the word "spontaneously"

I have been telling them for pages...actually since I got here..spontaneously is the key word...and spontaneously is speaking to the so called back radiation that they claim is coming back to the surface of the earth.

And I agree with no back radiation. No one can prove it. so it's just magic. and has magic powers. I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement and felt obligated to let him know it.

And I agree with no back radiation.

Because you're ignorant.

No one can prove it.

Funny that SSDD's sources said there is.

I just found it interesting that crick's link backed your statement

Which link in what post do you mistakenly feel did that?

Sir, I will politely tell you that there is no evidence of back radiation. You can post on this forum as many times as you like, but the fact is there is no evidence of it. None.

It's Crickster's link. It was embedded in his link. I thought I included it in my post with the abstract.

Edit: yep I did. post #162.