Yes, 97%

[Crick]

You are out of your ******* mind.

For anyone here that never had Algebra 101 in the 6th or 7th grade, the Distributive Property states that

A x (B + C) = AxB + AxC

It says = (EQUALS). It doesn't say it changes the value. The value of the expression on either side of an EQUALS sign isTHE SAME. That's why they call it AN EQUATION. You don't have to get the author's ******* permission to use the Distributive property. If you have a statement that fits one side, it can be rearranged to look like the other side WITHOUT CHANGING A GODDAMNED THING. Period. End of story.
***************************************************************************************

= (e sigma A T^4) - (e sigma A Tc^4).

EQUALS, YOU ******* MORON

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....you know Old Crick is getting pwned when he starts flying off the handle!!!


pwned s0n.........time for Plan B. The bomb throwing strategy is fAiLiNg......you and the 2 or 3 AGW pals you have in here need to huddle up.

Weve noticed that month after month in here, very few peeps come into this forum in support of AGW. In fact, its rather a joke. Place is littered with skeptics though.........whats up with that? There is Crick, Rolling Thunder, Mamooth. That's it!!! Old Rocks comes in for a cup of coffee every so often. But dozens of skeptics Who knew???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody cares about "equations" when the scientists are rigging the data. Its that simple. Nobody comes into this forum because they know it is an exercise in futility.........a veritable group navel contemplation session daily by the AGW truthers is not at all compelling. Its the same shit......different day. People have figured out the ruse is.........a ruse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you shitting me? You ACTUALLY want to tell us that the Distributive Property can't be applied here? Are you out of your ******* mind?

Of course it can be applied, but when speaking the language of mathematics, an alteration of the equation equals an alteration of the process being described...even if the answer remains the same...Lets see the justification for applying the distributive property....not only is it incorrect, but the application of the distributive property to this equation

is just plain bad math. Lets hear a mathematically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation other than the simple fact that you want it to describe a mythical two way energy flow rather than the one way flow it describes.

You have painted yourself into a corner now crick...lets hear a rational reason to alter the way a physical law is written.

Lets hear a mathematically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation other than the simple fact that you want it to describe a mythical two way energy flow rather than the one way flow it describes.
And by claiming it explains a one way, rather than a net flow of energy, you run into the information problem.
How does the warmer object know the temperature of the cooler object, in order to know how fast to radiate, in the absence of any radiation escaping the cooler object?

It can't. So your "smart object" or "smart wave" interpretation of the Stefan Boltzmann law is a massive fail.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's all about information.[/quot3e]

Not for you...you have already told me more about you than you know yourself in this particular arena.

How does the temperature information get from the cooler to the warmer object?

Two microwave dishes transmitting at different magnitudes with overlapping paths...how does the weaker signal know to be interfered with?

Two radio towers transmitting on the same frequency at different magnitudes...how does the weaker signal know not to simply go on to your radio for broadcast?

Anthromorphizing, as I said, is a very weak sort of defense mechanism....surprises me that people like you and Ian resort to it....it is the sort of defense mechanism a child uses...one would think that you would have grown out of it by now.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.



Why are you ignoring this article from 1963?
Did Science Magazine misunderstand the 2nd Law?

Why are you ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann constant?

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

You'll notice it is a function of temperature of a body and not a function of the temperature of the surroundings. Were they wrong?
Do we need an SSDD amendment to the constant?

So lets hear why the SB law is not simply the SB constant. And by the way, where is the back radiation in your post...or is it something that you just have to believe?

However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

It's here. Do you feel they were somehow wrong? Look at what they said, the warmer body had a net loss of about 100 watts. Do you feel that net loss violates the 2nd Law? Violates the SB law?

If the cooler surroundings only absorbed and never emitted, how does that human subject know to radiate at a speed that fits in the SB law, using 307K and 296K?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL.....you know Old Crick is getting pwned when he starts flying off the handle!!!


pwned s0n.........time for Plan B. The bomb throwing strategy is fAiLiNg......you and the 2 or 3 AGW pals you have in here need to huddle up.

Weve noticed that month after month in here, very few peeps come into this forum in support of AGW. In fact, its rather a joke. Place is littered with skeptics though.........whats up with that? There is Crick, Rolling Thunder, Mamooth. That's it!!! Old Rocks comes in for a cup of coffee every so often. But dozens of skeptics Who knew???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody cares about "equations" when the scientists are rigging the data. Its that simple. Nobody comes into this forum because they know it is an exercise in futility.........a veritable group navel contemplation session daily by the AGW truthers is not at all compelling. Its the same shit......different day. People have figured out the ruse is.........a ruse.

Nobody cares about "equations" when the scientists are rigging the data.

I care about the equations and the rigged data.
SSDD's ignorance is not excused by Michael Mann's fake hockey stick.
The sooner he admits his error, the sooner I can concentrate on the errors of the warmers.

 

[IanC]

Are you shitting me? You ACTUALLY want to tell us that the Distributive Property can't be applied here? Are you out of your ******* mind?

Of course it can be applied, but when speaking the language of mathematics, an alteration of the equation equals an alteration of the process being described...even if the answer remains the same...Lets see the justification for applying the distributive property....not only is it incorrect, but the application of the distributive property to this equation

is just plain bad math. Lets hear a mathematically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation other than the simple fact that you want it to describe a mythical two way energy flow rather than the one way flow it describes.

You have painted yourself into a corner now crick...lets hear a rational reason to alter the way a physical law is written.

Lets hear a mathematically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation other than the simple fact that you want it to describe a mythical two way energy flow rather than the one way flow it describes.
And by claiming it explains a one way, rather than a net flow of energy, you run into the information problem.
How does the warmer object know the temperature of the cooler object, in order to know how fast to radiate, in the absence of any radiation escaping the cooler object?

It can't. So your "smart object" or "smart wave" interpretation of the Stefan Boltzmann law is a massive fail.

I totally agree. SSDD's version also runs afoul of conservation of momentum and entropy laws.

 

[SSDD]

And by claiming it explains a one way, rather than a net flow of energy, you run into the information problem.

First thing toddster ...that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow is not a claim...it is a fact. Second...any problem lies with your interpretation...You want to prove the SB equation, and in turn the SB law incorrect, go ahead....but so long as it remains written as it is, it describes a one way energy flow. The fact that you don't seem to be able to recognize even this basic fact pretty much invalidates anything else you have to say on the topic...

By the way...chuckle chuckle on your thought experiment...Now, do you have any actual observed, measured examples of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object?....of course not. Can you possibly imagine why you have no such examples?...of course not. Your faith is strong...your evidence is non existent?

Tell me toddster...is LW a wave or a shower of photons....provide proof of your answer...

 

[SSDD]

If the cooler surroundings only absorbed and never emitted, how does that human subject know to radiate at a speed that fits in the SB law, using 307K and 296K?

Like it or not, your example only shows what the SB law predicts...and the SB law remains a description of a one way energy flow. Sorry you can't get it....Got any real observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm one?

 

[SSDD]

I care about the equations and the rigged data.

No you don't. You clearly don't like the fact that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow since you obviously believe in a two way energy flow...you are perfectly willing to bastardize and corrupt a physical law in an effort to make it conform to your beliefs...that is precisely what those who are rigging data are doing. They believe in something and are perfectly willing to disregard everything else in an attempt to falsely prove their beliefs.

If you, in fact, gave a rat's ass about the equations, then you would acknowledge that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow and simply acknowledge that every observation bears out that description rather than continue to provide an endless parade of thought experiments in lieu of any actual evidence that the equations and in turn, the law is wrong.

SSDD's ignorance is not excused by Michael Mann's fake hockey stick.

If I am, in fact, as ignorant as you claim, why are you unable to provide any actual observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm one? If I am as ignorant as you claim, why does the second law of thermodynamics and the SB law support my position? If I am as ignorant as you claim, why does the SB equation describe a one way energy flow?

The sooner he admits his error, the sooner I can concentrate on the errors of the warmers.

Why would I admit error? The SB equation describes a one way energy flow. Do I think I am smarter than the guys who wrote the law, and the equation and feel the need to try and prove that something other than what they wrote is happening? Not me. You on the other hand apparently think you are smarter than them and do feel a need to claim that something other than the one way energy flow they described is happening.

We remain where we started....the law says what I claim and every observation ever made confirms the law...you think something else is happening and can't provide any observed, measured evidence to the contrary...you accuse the authors of the SB law, and anyone who accepts the law of believing in magic.

 

[SSDD]

I totally agree. SSDD's version also runs afoul of conservation of momentum and entropy laws.

I don't have a version. I have this.

. I have nothing but the SB law...as it is written....and it describes a one way energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings. Modifications to the equation are required in order to make it appear to describe a two way energy flow...which side of this discussion is working with a version of the SB equations other than as they were originally written?

I guess I will ask you the same thing as I asked toddster...is LW a wave or a shower of photons...can you show actual proof to support your answer?

 

[SSDD]

You are out of your ******* mind.

For anyone here that never had Algebra 101 in the 6th or 7th grade, the Distributive Property states that

A x (B + C) = AxB + AxC

It says = (EQUALS). It doesn't say it changes the value. The value of the expression on either side of an EQUALS sign isTHE SAME. That's why they call it AN EQUATION. You don't have to get the author's ******* permission to use the Distributive property. If you have a statement that fits one side, it can be rearranged to look like the other side WITHOUT CHANGING A GODDAMNED THING. Period. End of story.
***************************************************************************************

= (e sigma A T^4) - (e sigma A Tc^4).

EQUALS, YOU ******* MORON

Still waiting...........can you, or can't you give a rational, scientifically, and mathematically sound reason for applying the distributive property to this equation....

??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And by claiming it explains a one way, rather than a net flow of energy, you run into the information problem.

First thing toddster ...that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow is not a claim...it is a fact. Second...any problem lies with your interpretation...You want to prove the SB equation, and in turn the SB law incorrect, go ahead....but so long as it remains written as it is, it describes a one way energy flow. The fact that you don't seem to be able to recognize even this basic fact pretty much invalidates anything else you have to say on the topic...

By the way...chuckle chuckle on your thought experiment...Now, do you have any actual observed, measured examples of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object?....of course not. Can you possibly imagine why you have no such examples?...of course not. Your faith is strong...your evidence is non existent?

Tell me toddster...is LW a wave or a shower of photons....provide proof of your answer...

First thing toddster ...that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow is not a claim...it is a fact.

How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?

...Now, do you have any actual observed, measured examples of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object?....

Yes.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.



Did Science magazine err in their measurement of energy radiated from the cooler walls and ceiling to the warmer human body?
Do you feel they lacked fact checkers back in 1963?
You should write them and point out their serious error in this case.

Their response should be amusing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the cooler surroundings only absorbed and never emitted, how does that human subject know to radiate at a speed that fits in the SB law, using 307K and 296K?

Like it or not, your example only shows what the SB law predicts...and the SB law remains a description of a one way energy flow. Sorry you can't get it....Got any real observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm one?

SB shows what the net energy flow will be.

You should submit your theory of radiating/non-radiating to a science journal.
Their laughter should be educational.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I care about the equations and the rigged data.

No you don't. You clearly don't like the fact that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow since you obviously believe in a two way energy flow...you are perfectly willing to bastardize and corrupt a physical law in an effort to make it conform to your beliefs...that is precisely what those who are rigging data are doing. They believe in something and are perfectly willing to disregard everything else in an attempt to falsely prove their beliefs.

If you, in fact, gave a rat's ass about the equations, then you would acknowledge that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow and simply acknowledge that every observation bears out that description rather than continue to provide an endless parade of thought experiments in lieu of any actual evidence that the equations and in turn, the law is wrong.

SSDD's ignorance is not excused by Michael Mann's fake hockey stick.

If I am, in fact, as ignorant as you claim, why are you unable to provide any actual observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm one? If I am as ignorant as you claim, why does the second law of thermodynamics and the SB law support my position? If I am as ignorant as you claim, why does the SB equation describe a one way energy flow?

The sooner he admits his error, the sooner I can concentrate on the errors of the warmers.

Why would I admit error? The SB equation describes a one way energy flow. Do I think I am smarter than the guys who wrote the law, and the equation and feel the need to try and prove that something other than what they wrote is happening? Not me. You on the other hand apparently think you are smarter than them and do feel a need to claim that something other than the one way energy flow they described is happening.

We remain where we started....the law says what I claim and every observation ever made confirms the law...you think something else is happening and can't provide any observed, measured evidence to the contrary...you accuse the authors of the SB law, and anyone who accepts the law of believing in magic.

You clearly don't like the fact that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow since you obviously believe in a two way energy flow...

Yes, I believe energy flows both ways. I believe more energy flows from hot to cold, than the reverse, because I don't believe in magical waves or photons.
I believe the SB is correct, because ALL OBJECTS ABOVE 0K emit constantly.
I don't believe in smart waves or smart photons. I don't believe in any of the ridiculous requirements needed for your interpretation to work.

you accuse the authors of the SB law, and anyone who accepts the law of believing in magic

No, just you. Still waiting for you to explain the error in
Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870
Man up and tell me how they're wrong.

 

[SSDD]

How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?

You are asking the wrong person...I simply accept the SB law as true..It describes a one way energy transfer. If you think it is wrong...then prove it and get it changed.

Yes.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Sorry, but that is not an observed, measured example of a two way flow of energy...that is, at best, a simple proof of the SB law....that the output of a radiator is proportional to the temperature difference between itself and its surroundings...there is nothing there demonstrating two way energy flow...there is only confirmation of the SB law which describes one way energy flow. If you don't even get that, then....sorry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?

You are asking the wrong person...I simply accept the SB law as true..It describes a one way energy transfer. If you think it is wrong...then prove it and get it changed.

Yes.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Sorry, but that is not an observed, measured example of a two way flow of energy...that is, at best, a simple proof of the SB law....that the output of a radiator is proportional to the temperature difference between itself and its surroundings...there is nothing there demonstrating two way energy flow...there is only confirmation of the SB law which describes one way energy flow. If you don't even get that, then....sorry.

It doesn't say the body emits less, it very clearly says the body receives back.
If you have such a difficult time understanding such a clear statement, you have bigger issues than your
confusion over the SB and the 2nd Law. Sorry.

Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts.

More proof of your confusion. It doesn't say, radiates 1000 watts, unless it's in a room over 307 K,
unless an object warmer than 307 K approaches. Because, if they said that, they'd be as wrong as you.

 

[SSDD]

How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?

Why do you keep asking the same stupid questions? Do you think that asking stupid questions makes you look smart? Did I write the SB law?....no...Did I write the equations that express a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to its cooler surroundings?...no. Do I recognize that the equation does, in fact, describe a one way energy flow...yes.

I didn't write the law...I just accept it. If you don't, then take it up with someone who can get it changed for you....till that happens, however, the law still describes a one way energy flow no matter how many stupid questions you think up to ask about it.

Yes.

No, I am afraid that you don't.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

What you have there is proof of the SB equation...that being that there is a one way energy flow between a radiator and its surroundings and the magnitude of that flow is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...

And before you ask your predictable stupid question again...I ask...did I write the SB law?....no...Did I write the equation that expresses the SB law as a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings?...no, I did not.

Did Science magazine err in their measurement of energy radiated from the cooler walls and ceiling to the warmer human body?

Science magazine expressed an eroneous opinion...they did not prove anything... Again, all the article shows is what the SB equation claims...a one way energy transfer from a warm radiator to its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings. Nothing more....there is no measurement of the human bodies absorbing anything from anywhere.

First thing toddster ...that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow is not a claim...it is a fact.[/quote

Did I write the SB law?...no. Did I write the SB equation such that it expresses a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings?...again, no. That is, none the less what the SB LAW says. Ask your stupid question to someone who might, or might not be able to answer. I am satisfied with the FACT that the law is expressed as a one way energy transfer...and all measurements are as the LAW predicts.

How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?

Attach a 1.5 volt battery, a 9 volt battery, and a 12 volt battery together using a 3 way switch...throw the switch so that the 1.5 volt battery is connected to the 9 volt battery...how do the electrons in the 1.5 volt battery know that they can't go down the wire to the 9volt battery? Now throw the switch so that the 9 volt battery is connected to the 12 volt battery...how do the electrons in the 9 volt battery now know that they can't run up the wire to the 12 volt battery...now open the switch so that all the batteries are connected to each other...how do the electrons in the 9 and the 1.5 volt batteries know that they can't run up the wire to each other or the 12 volt battery? If intelligence is required to adhere to natural laws...how do all those electrons know where they can go or where they can't? Or are they perhaps just doing the only thing they can do because of the forces that are acting upon them?

Yes.

Again, no you don't. What you have is no better than your suggestion that reflected light from an ice cube is the same as radiation from the ice cube...

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't say the body emits less, it very clearly says the body receives back.

Yeah, that's what it says...That, isn't, however, what the SB law says. The SB law describes a one way energy flow between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that flow being dependent on the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings. And there was no measurement there...there was simply, and predictably, an unobserved, unmeasured, untested claim.

If you have such a difficult time understanding such a clear statement, you have bigger issues than your confusion over the SB and the 2nd Law. Sorry.

Clear, unmeasured, unobserved, untested statement....it was an opinion...nothing more. No energy was measured being absorbed by the human bodies...if any actual measurement was done at all, all that was shown was that the amount of energy the body radiates is dependent on the temperature difference between the body and its surroundings...just as the SB law predicts...and predicts, by the way, with a mathematical expression describing a one way energy flow.

You lose again. You can win in one of two ways...either show the impossible, that being an actual observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving between a cool object and a warm object...or stop asking stupid questions of someone who didn't write the law as an expression of a one way movement of energy from a warm radiator to its cooler surroundings.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's all about information.[/quot3e]

Not for you...you have already told me more about you than you know yourself in this particular arena.

How does the temperature information get from the cooler to the warmer object?

Two microwave dishes transmitting at different magnitudes with overlapping paths...how does the weaker signal know to be interfered with?

Two radio towers transmitting on the same frequency at different magnitudes...how does the weaker signal know not to simply go on to your radio for broadcast?

Anthromorphizing, as I said, is a very weak sort of defense mechanism....surprises me that people like you and Ian resort to it....it is the sort of defense mechanism a child uses...one would think that you would have grown out of it by now.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.



Why are you ignoring this article from 1963?
Did Science Magazine misunderstand the 2nd Law?

Why are you ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann constant?

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

You'll notice it is a function of temperature of a body and not a function of the temperature of the surroundings. Were they wrong?
Do we need an SSDD amendment to the constant?

So lets hear why the SB law is not simply the SB constant. And by the way, where is the back radiation in your post...or is it something that you just have to believe?

However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

It's here. Do you feel they were somehow wrong? Look at what they said, the warmer body had a net loss of about 100 watts. Do you feel that net loss violates the 2nd Law? Violates the SB law?

If the cooler surroundings only absorbed and never emitted, how does that human subject know to radiate at a speed that fits in the SB law, using 307K and 296K?

All objects radiate energy all of the time. It is the thermal reaction which regulates the speed at which the radiation occurs. A black body at 296 K will emit far less energy than a black body at 307 k. The cooler objects power can not over power the energy coming from the warmer object. Thermal flow is always from the warmer to the cooler as bodies attempt to return to zero K.

It is the thermal balance/imbalance which regulates the reaction.

Think of it as two hoses. One of the hoses is 3/4 inch at 60 psi, this is the black body at 296 k. The other is a hose 3" in diameter at 300 psi, this is the black body at 307 K. Place both hoses facing each other at one foot apart. The bigger hose at higher pressure will push all thermal energy from the cooler object away from it warming the cooler object. The thermal imbalance creates the energy to transfer. As these two temps become closer the thermal energy equalizes. Both objects near the same input/output. The greater the imbalance the greater the force and speed of the thermal reaction.

This same process is what drives earths climate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?

Why do you keep asking the same stupid questions? Do you think that asking stupid questions makes you look smart? Did I write the SB law?....no...Did I write the equations that express a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to its cooler surroundings?...no. Do I recognize that the equation does, in fact, describe a one way energy flow...yes.

I didn't write the law...I just accept it. If you don't, then take it up with someone who can get it changed for you....till that happens, however, the law still describes a one way energy flow no matter how many stupid questions you think up to ask about it.

Yes.

No, I am afraid that you don't.

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

What you have there is proof of the SB equation...that being that there is a one way energy flow between a radiator and its surroundings and the magnitude of that flow is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...

And before you ask your predictable stupid question again...I ask...did I write the SB law?....no...Did I write the equation that expresses the SB law as a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings?...no, I did not.

Did Science magazine err in their measurement of energy radiated from the cooler walls and ceiling to the warmer human body?

Science magazine expressed an eroneous opinion...they did not prove anything... Again, all the article shows is what the SB equation claims...a one way energy transfer from a warm radiator to its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings. Nothing more....there is no measurement of the human bodies absorbing anything from anywhere.

First thing toddster ...that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow is not a claim...it is a fact.

Did I write the SB law?...no. Did I write the SB equation such that it expresses a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings?...again, no. That is, none the less what the SB LAW says. Ask your stupid question to someone who might, or might not be able to answer. I am satisfied with the FACT that the law is expressed as a one way energy transfer...and all measurements are as the LAW predicts.

How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?

Attach a 1.5 volt battery, a 9 volt battery, and a 12 volt battery together using a 3 way switch...throw the switch so that the 1.5 volt battery is connected to the 9 volt battery...how do the electrons in the 1.5 volt battery know that they can't go down the wire to the 9volt battery? Now throw the switch so that the 9 volt battery is connected to the 12 volt battery...how do the electrons in the 9 volt battery now know that they can't run up the wire to the 12 volt battery...now open the switch so that all the batteries are connected to each other...how do the electrons in the 9 and the 1.5 volt batteries know that they can't run up the wire to each other or the 12 volt battery? If intelligence is required to adhere to natural laws...how do all those electrons know where they can go or where they can't? Or are they perhaps just doing the only thing they can do because of the forces that are acting upon them?

Yes.

Again, no you don't. What you have is no better than your suggestion that reflected light from an ice cube is the same as radiation from the ice cube...

[/QUOTE]

Why do you keep asking the same stupid questions?

Your failure to answer the question doesn't make the question stupid, it only proves that you are.

Did I write the equations that express a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to its cooler surroundings?...no

Good, because no one else wrote an equation like that either.

Science magazine expressed an eroneous opinion...they did not prove anything

LOL! You should contact them now, and explain their error.
Their response should be amusing.