Energy and resource crisis in the future

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:The energy in the photon changes form from electromagnetic energy to indistinguishable thermal energy ...

So what happens to the photon that comes to Earth from the dark side of the moon?

I know, so does Marcus, it's absorbed. What's your answer.

IBdaMann wrote:
DODGE!

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
DODGE!

Ha! Did you have a question? Marcus presented a photon traveling from the dark side of the moon to Earth.

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote:Well, we were discussing EMR, so your point is ???

I wrote in English, so your problem is ???

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

Energy in the form of electromagnetic energy is not energy in the form of thermal energy.

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic energy.
Thermal radiation is not thermal energy.


.

MarcusR wrote:Seriously.... What was you point with thermal energy and radiation ?

MarcusR wrote: 1. Any body above 0K emits EMR

MarcusR wrote: 2. A body can not choose what photons to absorb or not. If it absorbs at i.e 10 um it will absorb ANY photons at that frequency.

MarcusR wrote: 3. Just do a spectracalc for 299K, 300K and 301K. Get the point ???

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...PHOTONS come into play.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

IBdaMann wrote:
Forget the photons ...

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.

tmiddles wrote:

tmiddles wrote:He will also lie and claim he did point it out.

Into the Night wrote:
Already did. RQAA.

Just a liar.

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:...climate hysteria is a convinient cover up story for ...soon because we have consumed all our resources ...

I think that's an excellent point!

So one of the very first chemists to work with oil said it was like burning money to burn oil, because it was such a useful and valuable molecule (which has certainly turned out to be true.

tmiddles wrote:
I can totally see humanity if 500 years livid that we burned all the oil they could have used and reused.

tmiddles wrote:

MarcusR wrote:
Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

You are a talented teach Marcus! This could be a children's book.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. I'm not interested in photons

DODGE!

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons ....

And by what means do the energy flow ??

Conduction, convection, and radiance.

Yes ITN, radiance. That would be a photon.

tmiddles wrote:
I won't get into how conduction and convection with the dark side of the moon is a bit, well, you know.

tmiddles wrote:
Marcus example is on point. Dodge away.

MarcusR wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons if what is being discussed is the flow of thermal energy. Let's just look at the thermal energy between the earth and the dark side of the moon, without any irrelevant distractions.

Oh, look. Thermal energy only flows from the warmer to the cooler.

Gee, that was easy.


.

And by what means do the energy flow ??

Conduction, convection, and radiance.

Probably not convection or conduction....... Or have you found a way for that to happen without a medium ????

MarcusR wrote:

Like I said, I'm not interested in distractions. The means is unimportant when you and I both are fully acknowledging that it happens.

Ergo, looking only at the flow of the thermal energy, because the thermal energy is all that concerns us, I see only a monotone decrease in thermal energy of the warmer and only a monotone increase of thermal energy in the cooler. I never see any increases in thermal energy in the warmer or any decreases in thermal energy in the cooler.
.

But you do accept the fact that a photon can be absorbed by a body, even though the emitting body is cooler than the absorbing body ?

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons if what is being discussed is the flow of thermal energy. Let's just look at the thermal energy between the earth and the dark side of the moon, without any irrelevant distractions.

Oh, look. Thermal energy only flows from the warmer to the cooler.

Gee, that was easy.


.

I forgot the unit at the end of the story, it is eV, so the 10 um photon has an energy of 0.123984 eV or 1.9864424956421e-20 Ws.

I could convert that to Wh or kWh if you would like.. .

Oohhh, by the way. By what means do energy flow between the dark side of the moon and the earth ???

MarcusR wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote: Here is the story of the poor photon leaving the Moon;

Nope. I'm not interested in photons if what is being discussed is the flow of thermal energy. Let's just look at the thermal energy between the earth and the dark side of the moon, without any irrelevant distractions.

Oh, look. Thermal energy only flows from the warmer to the cooler.

Gee, that was easy.


.

And by what means do the energy flow ??

Conduction, convection, and radiance.

Probably not convection or conduction....... Or have you found a way for that to happen without a medium ????

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote: And by what means do the energy flow ??

...looking only at the flow of the thermal energy, ...

Are you with ITN in believe conduction and convection are involved?

Is light a flow of thermal energy?

tmiddles wrote:
Oh and do you believe it's a "Net flow" of thermal energy?

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote:Well, they are besides temperature the same, so that photon will be absorbed by the 320K body, thus ~0.082 eV of energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body.

Nope. To understand exactly what goes on you have to take a quantum view. The photon is destroyed, yes. The energy that was the photon is no longer a photon. Any thermal energy is indistinguishable from any other thermal energy. In fact, you can take the photons out of the picture and simply look at levels of thermal energy in each body. At the moment you say the photon strikes the body, there is no ~0.082 eV surge in the body's amount of thermal energy. There will always remain a steady flow of thermal energy from warmer to cooler. As such, you do not get to use the phrase "energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body."

Ultimately there is no "net" in the flow. There are several good books on thermodynamics out there. Maybe you've seen a few yourself.

.

So in your opinion, what happens to the energy that the photon has, in this case ~0.082 eV ??

I got Borgnakke in my bookshelf btw. Not the latest since I took my M.Sc in 1995. Mail Claus and ask..

tmiddles wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:....you do not get to use the phrase "energy is transfered from the 300K body go the 320K body."

Ultimately there is no "net" in the flow. There are several good books on thermodynamics out there. Maybe you've seen a few yourself.

So in your opinion, what happens to the energy that the photon has, in this case ~0.082 eV ??

Marcus I have an IMPOSSIBLE challenge for you. Get IBD to recommend ANY book on thermodynamics. He will, in spite of the quote above, dodge that to his dying day. As will ITN.

tmiddles wrote:
We do have wacko case law on that happens, in the opinion of this brand of denier, to a photon from a cooler object as it reaches a warmer one:

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

You see? It's "uncertainty"! Gee, that was easy.

Let's make it a multiple choice for IBD, base on his own unique brand of physics. A photon from a cooler object does what when it reaches a warmer one.
a) deflect
b) do a back flip
c) take a selfie
d) interact in an uncertainty way

MarcusR wrote:

photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

I have always wondered HOW a body can determine whether or not to absorb a i.e 10 um photon depending upon the temperature of the emitting body. I mean, if you do a simple calculation of the radiance of a body at 299K and 301K you will find they both emit at i.e 10 um.

How is a 300K body supposed to be able to choose to absorb a 10 um photon from the 299K body while not doing so with a photon of the exact same freq from a 301K body ????

tmiddles wrote:

MarcusR wrote:...a body at 299K and 301K you will find they both emit at i.e 10 um.

I've never been able to pin the "theorists" here, ITN/IBD, on "photon rejection" down on what DOES happen to the photon.

tmiddles wrote:
It's also worth pointing out that, while we all recognize a true black body is only possible in theory, not only would a black body be an impossibility in the scenario in which photons are rejected based on the sources temperature, there would be a very strange rising reflectivity? maybe?

tmiddles wrote:
So as an objects temperature increase it would, according to this first law of wackos, reject all incoming radiance originating from objects below it's own temperature.

So what would this mean for an object cooling to equilibrium? We know, empirically that as an object approaches the temperature of it's environment cooling slows as expected. It's still hotter than it's environment but as it nears equilibrium the give and take on NET THERMAL TRANSFER means the change in temp slows down.

tmiddles wrote:
(Newton's law of cooling is that an object's temperature change rate is proportional to its own temperature and the temperature of the surrounding environment.)
But IF according to this first law of wackos the object is magickally unable to absorb any radiance from it's environment, then it's cooling would be entirely independent of it's environment and it's cooling would come crashing down into the ambient temperature with a thud.

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:I've never been able to pin the "theorists" here, ITN/IBD, on "photon rejection" down on what DOES happen to the photon.

Yes you have. Both Into the Night and I have explained to you exhaustively and repeatedly. I'm sure you remember ignoring every instance thereof and instead assigning bogus positions to us instead.

Have you given any thought to a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? Once again, since the issue is thermal energy, I'm not interested in getting bogged down in unneccessary distractions about other things, i.e. let's just focus on thermal energy. It has been five months now and I'm not the only one who is eager to take you up on your demonstration of a quantity of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer (even if there might be more thermal energy flowing from warmer to cooler). You have really piqued some interest and I hope you can find some time to share your repeatable example with us.

.

Well, we were discussing EMR, so your point is ???

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:The energy in the photon changes form from electromagnetic energy to indistinguishable thermal energy ...

So what happens to the photon that comes to Earth from the dark side of the moon?

tmiddles wrote:
I know, so does Marcus, it's absorbed. What's your answer.

tmiddles wrote:
(also English) and on another note why don't you tighten up your signature a bit. It's annoyingly long.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
DODGE!

Ha! Did you have a question? Marcus presented a photon traveling from the dark side of the moon to Earth. Did you have a question about that or were you trying to change the subject.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote:
You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

MarcusR wrote:Well, we were discussing EMR, so your point is ???

I wrote in English, so your problem is ???

Seriously.... What was you point with thermal energy and radiation ?
1. Any body above 0K emits EMR
2. A body can not choose what photons to absorb or not. If it absorbs at i.e 10 um it will absorb ANY photons at that frequency.
3. Just do a spectracalc for 299K, 300K and 301K. Get the point ???

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

Energy in the form of electromagnetic energy is not energy in the form of thermal energy.

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic energy.
Thermal radiation is not thermal energy.


.

W is W, and a Ws is a Ws....

I can accept that we all have different opinions, but when we are discussing physics we need to keep opinions out of it.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...PHOTONS come into play.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

Which book would you recommend?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Forget the photons ...

No.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
So one of the very first chemists to work with oil said it was like burning money to burn oil, because it was such a useful and valuable molecule (which has certainly turned out to be true.

Random so-called 'quote' from an unnamed source. You?

]

W is W, and a Ws is a Ws....

I can accept that we all have different opinions, but when we are discussing physics we need to keep opinions out of it.

MarcusR wrote:

]

W is W, and a Ws is a Ws....

I can accept that we all have different opinions, but when we are discussing physics we need to keep opinions out of it.

We need to keep random letters out of it too.

Not all light is a single frequency. There is no such thing as a 'spectracalc'. Buzzword fallacy. No molecule will absorb a photon that has less energy than the molecule already has. Light is not thermal energy. False equivalence fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm not interested in photons if the topic is supposed to be thermal energy.

Then you might want to grab an actual book on thermodynamics.

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
You see THERMAL ENERGY takes the form of RADIANCE all the time and that IBD, is where PHOTONS come into play.

False equivalence fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Electromagnetic energy is not the same as thermal energy.

Into the Night wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:I've never been able to pin the "theorists" here, ITN/IBD, on "photon rejection" down on what DOES happen to the photon.

Yes you have. Both Into the Night and I have explained to you exhaustively and repeatedly. I'm sure you remember ignoring every instance thereof and instead assigning bogus positions to us instead.

Have you given any thought to a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? Once again, since the issue is thermal energy, I'm not interested in getting bogged down in unneccessary distractions about other things, i.e. let's just focus on thermal energy. It has been five months now and I'm not the only one who is eager to take you up on your demonstration of a quantity of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer (even if there might be more thermal energy flowing from warmer to cooler). You have really piqued some interest and I hope you can find some time to share your repeatable example with us.

.

Well, we were discussing EMR, so your point is ???

Neither of you are. You are discussing thermal energy, and attempting to equivocate thermal energy with electromagnetic energy. They are NOT the same.

MarcusR wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:I've never been able to pin the "theorists" here, ITN/IBD, on "photon rejection" down on what DOES happen to the photon.

Yes you have. Both Into the Night and I have explained to you exhaustively and repeatedly. I'm sure you remember ignoring every instance thereof and instead assigning bogus positions to us instead.

Have you given any thought to a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? Once again, since the issue is thermal energy, I'm not interested in getting bogged down in unneccessary distractions about other things, i.e. let's just focus on thermal energy. It has been five months now and I'm not the only one who is eager to take you up on your demonstration of a quantity of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer (even if there might be more thermal energy flowing from warmer to cooler). You have really piqued some interest and I hope you can find some time to share your repeatable example with us.

.

Well, we were discussing EMR, so your point is ???

Neither of you are. You are discussing thermal energy, and attempting to equivocate thermal energy with electromagnetic energy. They are NOT the same.

A Joule, is a Joule, is a Joule... ...

James___ wrote:
... the thermal radiation from a black body is emr. I would hope you know this ITN.

tmiddles wrote:
Buy a heat lamp and set it up at home. See how very real thermal energy by way of radiance/photons is.

Xadoman wrote: The future is doomed.

Amanbir Grewal wrote: best thing about monkeys is that they live on trees, and not with us, hehe.