Most of the past ten thousand years hotter than today.

[Into the Night]

I'll trust M.I.T. over your declarations, Parrot.

Especially when you misquote them.

" Radiation Heat Transfer (Heat transfer by thermal radiation)

Heat does not transfer. It is not transferable. There is no such thing as 'thermal radiation'.

All bodies radiate energy in the form of photons moving in a random direction,

A photon is not radiation. A photon is a particle.

with random phase

Photons have no phase.

and frequency.

Photons do have a frequency, which determines the energy of the photon.

When radiated photons reach another surface, they may either be absorbed, reflected or transmitted.

Correct. No molecule will absorb a photon with less energy than the molecule already has.

The behavior of a surface with radiation incident upon it can be described by the following quantities:

$ \alpha$ = absorptance - fraction of incident radiation absorbed
$ \rho$ = reflectance - fraction of incident radiation reflected
$ \tau$ = transmittance - fraction of incident radiation transmitted."

https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node133.html

This part is correct.

And Kirchoff's law prevents the heating of the hotter object.

Not a factor. Strawman fallacy.

The hotter object does not get hotter when exchanging radiant heat with a colder object.

There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat only flows one way.

 

[Into the Night]

Look if one thing is 100 degrees and another is 50 degrees they will they will both become 75 degrees. Cold doesn't go to heat

Again, assuming equal mass. The general gist is, hotter things will cool as energy moves to colder things, which warm. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It only flows one way. He is trying to create the concept of 'net heat'.

 

[Bigdog]

Especially when you misquote them.

I did not misquote M.I.T..

 

[Into the Night]

I did not misquote M.I.T..

Yes you did. I might also point out that M.I.T. does not define science and did not define any law of thermodynamics (which you are ignoring). Neither did it define the Stefan-Boltzmann law (which you are also ignoring). Neither did it define any of Planck's laws (which you are also ignoring).

M.I.T. is a school, not a person. Void authority fallacy. It is not a proof nor a Universal Truth of any kind.

 

[Bigdog]

Yes you did. I might also point out that M.I.T. does not define science and did not define any law of thermodynamics (which you are ignoring). Neither did it define the Stefan-Boltzmann law (which you are also ignoring). Neither did it define any of Planck's laws (which you are also ignoring).

M.I.T. is a school, not a person. Void authority fallacy. It is not a proof nor a Universal Truth of any kind.

The proof is right here ... https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node133.html
I did not misquote M.I.T..

YOU are a void authority fallacy.

 

[Bigdog]

Look if one thing is 100 degrees and another is 50 degrees they will they will both become 75 degrees. Cold doesn't go to heat

"Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation:

For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

emissivity ε = absorptivity α

This law must also be valid to satisfy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As was written, all bodies above absolute zero temperature radiate some heat. Two objects radiate heat toward each other. But what if a colder object with high emissivity radiates toward a hotter object with very low emissivity? This seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system without external work being performed on the system. The paradox is resolved by the fact that each body must be in direct sight of the other to receive radiation from it. Therefore, whenever the cool body is radiating heat to the hot body, the hot body must also be radiating heat to the cool body. Moreover, a hot body will radiate more energy than a cold body. The case of different emissivities is solved by Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation, which states that objects with low emissivity also have low absorptivity. As a result, heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system, and the second law is still satisfied."

https://www.nuclear-power.com/nucle...transfer/kirchhoffs-law-of-thermal-radiation/

 

[Into the Night]

The proof is right here ... https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node133.html

Holy Links are not a proof. Science is not a Holy Link.

I did not misquote M.I.T..

Yes you did. Just now. You are not quoting M.I.T., yet you say you are. You are quoting a book that is wrong.

YOU are a void authority fallacy.

Lame inversion. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

"Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation:

For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

emissivity ε = absorptivity α

This law must also be valid to satisfy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As was written, all bodies above absolute zero temperature radiate some heat. Two objects radiate heat toward each other. But what if a colder object with high emissivity radiates toward a hotter object with very low emissivity? This seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system without external work being performed on the system. The paradox is resolved by the fact that each body must be in direct sight of the other to receive radiation from it. Therefore, whenever the cool body is radiating heat to the hot body, the hot body must also be radiating heat to the cool body. Moreover, a hot body will radiate more energy than a cold body. The case of different emissivities is solved by Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation, which states that objects with low emissivity also have low absorptivity. As a result, heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system, and the second law is still satisfied."

https://www.nuclear-power.com/nucle...transfer/kirchhoffs-law-of-thermal-radiation/

Fixation on strawman fallacy. Fixation on redefinition fallacy. Fixation on false authority fallacies. Repetition fallacy. No argument presented. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat does not radiate. Emissivity is not temperature. Another definition fallacy.

 

[moon]

Dumbass.

 

[Bigdog]

Holy Links are not a proof. Science is not a Holy Link.

Yes you did. Just now. You are not quoting M.I.T., yet you say you are. You are quoting a book that is wrong.

Lame inversion. Grow up.

You are not a Holy source.

Of course, MIT did not write the book. It's a school; the building did not write it. It is on the MIT website which means MIT deems the content to be correct and accurate.

Now, let's have an honest intellectual discussion.

 

[Bigdog]

Fixation on strawman fallacy. Fixation on redefinition fallacy. Fixation on false authority fallacies. Repetition fallacy. No argument presented. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat does not radiate. Emissivity is not temperature. Another definition fallacy.

Hypothetically, if our Sun was very very close to a slightly hotter star would they exchange heat? Yes. The hotter star has no mechanism to block photons from a cooler star.

On a related issue, a gamma ray is radiation and the byproduct of fusion. A gamma ray is a photon.

 

[moon]

Into the Night Soil

You can't create energy out of nothing.

So where did it come from ?

 

[Into the Night]

You are not a Holy source.

Never said I was. I didn't write the laws of thermodynamics you deny, or the Stefan-Boltzmann law you deny.

Of course, MIT did not write the book.

Yet you claim it did. You are now locked in paradox.

It's a school; the building did not write it.

Yet you claim it did. You are now locked in paradox.

It is on the MIT website which means MIT deems the content to be correct and accurate.

Paradox. Irrational.

Now, let's have an honest intellectual discussion.

There is no discussion with irrationality. You must first clear your paradoxes.
...or you can ignore them for the moment and stop using false authorities, and start observing all the theories of science including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
No gas or vapor has the capability to reduce entropy.
You cannot trap heat.
There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
You cannot trap light.
Light is not heat.
Heat is not contained in anything.

 

[Into the Night]

Hypothetically, if our Sun was very very close to a slightly hotter star would they exchange heat?

No. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat is not transferable (or exchangeable).

Yes. The hotter star has no mechanism to block photons from a cooler star.

Yes it does. You are ignoring quantum mechanics again. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has.

On a related issue, a gamma ray is radiation

It is radiation because it comes from a point source. That is what radiation is.

and the byproduct of fusion.

No. Gamma rays can be produced by radioactive materials, lightning, cosmic rays, It iand of course some stars (including the Sun).

A gamma ray is a photon.

It is also a wave. The frequency of gamma rays are extremely high and energetic, causing ionization upon absorption.

Gamma rays have no temperature. They are not heat. Strawman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Into the Night Soil


So where did it come from ?

Void question. RQAA

 

[moon]

Void question. RQAA

Not to scientists, dumbass.
You're a pet parrot.


Haw, haw................................haw.

 

[Into the Night]

Not to scientists, dumbass.
You're a pet parrot.


Haw, haw................................haw.

High priests of the Church of Global Warming aren't scientists, dude.

 

[Bigdog]

Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
Yes. The hotter star has no mechanism to block photons from a cooler star.

Yes it does. You are ignoring quantum mechanics again. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has.

Fallacy. You are discarding Wien's Law.
Fallacy. Even colder objects emit photons at virtually all wavelengths.

It is radiation because it comes from a point source. That is what radiation is.

What percentage of photons do NOT have an emission source?other than theoretical photons

No. Gamma rays can be produced by radioactive materials, lightning, cosmic rays, It iand of course some stars (including the Sun).

Yes, gamma rays are photons.

 

[Into the Night]

Fallacy. You are discarding Wien's Law.

Strawman fallacy. Not a factor here.

Fallacy. Even colder objects emit photons at virtually all wavelengths.

No, they don't. Discard of quantum mechanics. Discard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Discard of Wien's law.

What percentage of photons do NOT have an emission source?other than theoretical photons

Void question.

Yes, gamma rays are photons.

Gamma rays have no temperature. Gamma rays are not heat.

 

[Bigdog]

Strawman fallacy. Not a factor here.

Ignorance fallacy.

No, they don't. Discard of quantum mechanics. Discard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Discard of Wien's law.

Ignorance fallacy.

Void question.

Ignorance fallacy.