Nils-Axel Mörner

tmiddles wrote:I have never said thermal energy is able to "flow" from cooler to warmer.

tmiddles wrote: Let me address it one more time:
As I define "flow" in thermal energy it is derived from the definition for "heat".

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:I have never said thermal energy is able to "flow" from cooler to warmer.

You directly implied it by using the term "net flow."

IBdaMann wrote:Your position remains that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer ...

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.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Let me address it one more time:
As I define "flow" in thermal energy it is derived from the definition for "heat".

"Heat" has no definition.

tmiddles wrote: Well if you'd like to know what I'm thinking just ask.

tmiddles wrote: Since radiance moves from cooler to warmer and "radiant heat" is discussed in all texts ...

tmiddles wrote: The "Net flow" issue in our discussions is exclusively due, on my end, to your claim made below about photons not being absorbed.

tmiddles wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Your position remains that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer ...

If you mean radiance then yes. But YOU (not myself or textbooks on the subject) seek to exclude radiance as a form of heat. Correct?

tmiddles wrote: My position was is and will be that radiance moves from a cooler body to a warmer body,

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Since radiance...

Once again, totally immaterial. If I am discussing gorillas, it does not matter that all textbooks that you find discuss "radiant heat." That topic is not what I'm discussing.

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

IBdaMann wrote:...your claim that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer, ..

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

IBdaMann wrote:
You are the one claiming that thermal radiation[emphasis by tmiddles] from a cooler body can be absorbed by a warmer body, and you well know that we are still waiting for your specific repeatable example of such. You know that the ball is in your court.

IBdaMann wrote:...You are trying to change topics.

IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann: Radiance(A) = SB_Const * Emissivity(A) * AbsTemp(A)^4
Question: Radiant energy of A transfers to what body? I don't see any.

IBdaMann wrote:Next question: when are you going to show SOME thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer?

tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 6...20a2...paradox E...20q...29...TMSb3...4e...20a2...paradox V...29...20a2...29...20q...20g...23...29...7...31...4e...16c...

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Since radiance...

Once again, totally immaterial. If I am discussing gorillas, it does not matter that all textbooks that you find discuss "radiant heat." That topic is not what I'm discussing.

You are discussing radiance right here IBD:

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Are you trying to pretend I'm talking about something other than radiance when I say you're dead wrong with the above statement?
Kindly quote me.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...your claim that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer, ..

If you are going to say I claimed something quote me properly. You are only quoting yourself there. My claim is that radiance, as a form of thermal energy does so. If you want to pretend I said something else you'll have a tough time finding a quote to support it.
Radiance is not thermal energy. Mantras 29...paradox V...20a2...10 (radiance<->thermal energy)...

tmiddles wrote:
Is there some reason you're pretending you didn't say:

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

And that I resoundingly debunked you here:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference Which is where, egg on your face, you first started this weird little mantra of pretending I'm not blacking up a claim you concocted? You first said:

Mantras 7...4a...4b...31...16a...

IBdaMann wrote:
You are the one claiming that thermal radiation[emphasis by tmiddles] from a cooler body can be absorbed by a warmer body, and you well know that we are still waiting for your specific repeatable example of such. You know that the ball is in your court.

To which a person in a room is an excellent example but frankly anything will do. You have NEVER said what you mean by "repeatable" and why a person in a room isn't a suitable example. You have moved on to distort your mantra into claiming it was never an example of radiance at all.

Now that's YOU saying "thermal radiation" and there is not a hint of your objecting to radiation being considered thermal energy when you did so 05-09-2019 15:13

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...You are trying to change topics.

Let me guess: You're going to pretend we are talking about conduction and convection with a reverse flow? Nope. Doesn't change the math either way and doesn't matter. I made no such claim.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann: Radiance(A) = SB_Const * Emissivity(A) * AbsTemp(A)^4
Question: Radiant energy of A transfers to what body? I don't see any.

It is a transfer out of a body. In the void of space, there may be negligible ambient radiance being absorbed by the same body. However those circumstances are rare. If you'd like to learn more, or actually debate the topic you'll find it all here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
Mantras 20a1...20a2...6...29...7...4a...

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Next question: when are you going to show SOME thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer?

Did I guess right? You're pretending we're talking about conduction and convection?

duncan61 wrote:
But how do I make my beer cooler? Do you think Stefan-Boltzmann would crack a tinnie with me or is he more of a vodka guy?I have been known to drink warm beer if its all we got.You pair are never going to agree and you are saying the same thing

Into the Night wrote:May I suggest a refrigerator?

IBdaMann is saying the same kind of thing because the theories of science involved and the mathematics involved have not changed, and tmiddles continues to deny both in the same way.

Tmiddles seems to feel that you can make hot coffee by using an ice cube. He routinely denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics and he is bending over backwards to do it.

tmiddles wrote: You are discussing radiance right here IBD:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...your claim that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer, ..

If you are going to say I claimed something quote me properly.

tmiddles wrote:
Is there some reason you're pretending you didn't say:

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

tmiddles wrote: You have NEVER said what you mean by "repeatable" and why a person in a room isn't a suitable example.

tmiddles wrote:Now that's YOU saying "thermal radiation" and there is not a hint of your objecting to radiation being considered thermal energy when you did so 05-09-2019 15:13

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann: Radiance(A) = SB_Const * Emissivity(A) * AbsTemp(A)^4
Question: Radiant energy of A transfers to what body? I don't see any.

It is a transfer out of a body.

IBdaMann wrote:You are fighting tooth and nail to change the topic to electromagnetic energy.

IBdaMann wrote:...your claim that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer, ..

IBdaMann wrote:...Your claim came through IMPLICATION...

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Is there some reason you're pretending you didn't say:

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

Is there some reason you omitted all the context within which that was written, i.e. the bigger picture concept I was expressing?

tmiddles wrote:...confused about, from the other post as well is the notion that radiance and conduction are not acting the same way. That an object will radiate and it's temperature change with no influence from objects nearby, or a void, unless the nearby object are hotter?

IBdaMann wrote:
I have not had a chance to read this so it is not vetted, but read it and we can discuss after I get a chance to look at it.
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/plancks-quantum-theory-explains-why-low.html

tmiddles wrote:
So this is an unclear presentation by hockeyshtick... ...EM radiation...will not be thermalized.
But what happens to it?

IBdaMann wrote:
1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: You have NEVER said what you mean by "repeatable" and why a person in a room isn't a suitable example.

Industry standards. All parameters must be under control by the tester and that is not possible with living things.

IBdaMann wrote:I never considered thermal radiation, which is a form of electromagnetic energy, to be thermal energy,

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:You are fighting tooth and nail to change the topic to electromagnetic energy.

You keep bringing up my use of "net flow" which I have only ever attributed to radiance.

JackFou wrote:
I recently came across this forum while I was trying to look up some information on climate change and after reading some threads here I have to say it is incredibly mind-boggling that Into the Night and IBDaMan after being active here for years *still* do not understand the first and second law of thermodynamics.
It is heartbreaking to see how two people who are clearly scientifically illiterate have convinced themselves that they're somehow geniuses.

IBdaMann wrote:You have always used the term "net flow" to refer to thermal energy.

IBdaMann wrote:
Let me know when you want to resume discussing thermal energy.

JackFou wrote:...it is incredibly mind-boggling that Into the Night and IBDaMan after being active here for years *still* do not understand the first and second law of thermodynamics.

JackFou wrote:
There is no point in trying to educate either of you.

JackFou wrote:...the result is an overall flow of heat from warm to cold.

tmiddles wrote:
...more reasonable conspiracy theories: say that the government can control the weather....

GasGuzzler wrote:Isn't that the whole purpose of hefty carbon taxes? You mean to tell me it is all just a money grabbing scam? I'll be damned!

JackFou wrote:
There is no point in trying to educate either of you. You have convinced yourself that you truly understand the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and their implications and that only your understanding is the correct one.
If you haven't understood it in the past 5 years, there is close to no chance that I would somehow be able to get it through your thick skull.
tmiddels tried several times to explain to you in this very thread that a hot and a cold object exchange energy in both directions -- however, since more energy per unit of time travels from the hot object to the cold object than in the other direction, the result is an overall flow of heat from warm to cold. Nothing about this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

JackFou wrote:
You simply deny that that's true by hand-waving. Your argument basically boils down to "nuh-uh, I'm right!".

JackFou wrote:
I don't know what your educational background is but if you'd spoken to any physics professor at all in your life about your understanding of the 2nd or 1st law of thermodynamics as it relates to global warming, they'd immediately tell you that you're wrong.

JackFou wrote:
I recently came across this forum while I was trying to look up some information on climate change and after reading some threads here I have to say it is incredibly mind-boggling that Into the Night and IBDaMan after being active here for years *still* do not understand the first and second law of thermodynamics.
It is heartbreaking to see how two people who are clearly scientifically illiterate have convinced themselves that they're somehow geniuses.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:You have always used the term "net flow" to refer to thermal energy.

This is true because I define thermal energy transfer as being: Radiance, Conduction and Convection
I consider radiance to be a form of thermal energy, you don't.

tmiddles wrote:
Is there some reason you are getting stuck on a semantic issue of your own invention and then choosing to walk away?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Let me know when you want to resume discussing thermal energy.

I have no problem discussing Conduction and Convection exclusive of radiance. What did you have to say on that subject?

tmiddles wrote:
If it's that there is no evidence of a "net flow" for either I've already said I've never thought otherwise.

tmiddles wrote:

JackFou wrote:...it is incredibly mind-boggling that Into the Night and IBDaMan after being active here for years *still* do not understand the first and second law of thermodynamics.

They know JackFou. Their attempt to destroy knowledge here has all the sophistication of a holocaust denier or flat earther.

tmiddles wrote:
They are both reasonably intelligent shameless liars.

tmiddles wrote:

JackFou wrote:
There is no point in trying to educate either of you.

I would say that you won't succeed in winning THEM over. However I think developing a clear, honest and effective rebuttal to any and all BS is a public service.

tmiddles wrote:
Note their take on Covid-19! The stakes are always high.

tmiddles wrote:

JackFou wrote:...the result is an overall flow of heat from warm to cold.

And these clowns are no less than 229 years late on that since Pierre Provost first described the NET FLOW of radiance which he called "free heat".link
"Prevost's theory of exchanges stated that each body radiates to, and receives radiation from, other bodies."

tmiddles wrote:
But JackFou recognize this for what it is: an attack on coherent thought and reason. Man walks into a bar and says bars don't exist. How do you handle that? The GOAL is to frustrate you and get you angry. That's because this type of insanity depends entirely upon an allegation that there is fraud involved by the government, establishment, and certainly you if you are contradicting them. So remaking you as an agenda driven, angry conspirator is key.

tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD deny every textbook every published on thermodynamics

tmiddles wrote:
because they believe there is a vast conspiracy to falsify information and dupe the public.

tmiddles wrote:
It's the same formula you get from more reasonable conspiracy theories: say that the government can control the weather, to less reasonable, like that the Earth is actually flat and we're all being lied to on the subject.

tmiddles wrote:
Placing a human being in the "chain of custody" for any evidence the wacko theory is wacko, gives them an out. They simply claim that human being doctored the data, ect.

duncan61 wrote:
when I went to Nils place on the weekend to visit his daughter Astrid.We put our hot beers in the snow and they became cooler.How would that be described and regards
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
I get a lot of energy from nothing when I see Astrid
The beer was colder
We trapped a lot of heat that night
We prefer the lights off
We made a lot of thermal something now she is having a baby

tmiddles wrote:
They know JackFou. Their attempt to destroy knowledge here has all the sophistication of a holocaust denier or flat earther. They are both reasonably intelligent shameless liars.

tmiddles wrote: I would say that you won't succeed in winning THEM over. However I think developing a clear, honest and effective rebuttal to any and all BS is a public service.

tmiddles wrote: And these clowns are no less than 229 years late on that since Pierre Provost first described the NET FLOW of radiance which he called "free heat".link
"Prevost's theory of exchanges stated that each body radiates to, and receives radiation from, other bodies."

tmiddles wrote:
But JackFou recognize this for what it is: an attack on coherent thought and reason. Man walks into a bar and says bars don't exist. How do you handle that? The GOAL is to frustrate you and get you angry. That's because this type of insanity depends entirely upon an allegation that there is fraud involved by the government, establishment, and certainly you if you are contradicting them. So remaking you as an agenda driven, angry conspirator is key.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.

Into the Night wrote:
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-W
Where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'W' is work.
2nd law of thermodtynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t)
Where 'e' is entropy, 't' is time.

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing, or to trap light, heat, or thermal energy, or to cause a cold object to heat a warmer one.

Into the Night wrote:
You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one.

IBdaMann wrote:
"Heat" has no definition.

JackFou wrote: If 10 joules per second flow from the cold object to the warm object and 50 joules per second flow from the warm object to the cold object, the result is a net flow of 40 joules per second from warm to cold.

JackFou wrote: You conveniently forgot the part about isolated systems.

JackFou wrote: Entropy can decrease locally if it increases by an equal or greater amount somewhere else.

JackFou wrote: If you put water in a freezer it freezes, locally decreasing energy and entropy inside the water.

JackFou wrote: This is possible because your freezer is not an isolated system.

JackFou wrote: Earth is not an isolated system either because there is constantly energy pouring in from the sun and energy pouring out into space.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote: No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing, or to trap light, heat, or thermal energy, or to cause a cold object to heat a warmer one.

No one is disputing any of that. Just more strawmen from your side.

JackFou wrote: What greenhouse gases can do is redirect flows of energy by absorbing and re-emitting photons.

JackFou wrote:Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere don't heat the surface of the earth. The sun heats the surface of the earth. What greenhouse gases do is they partially prevent the surface of the earth from cooling itself through radiative cooling.

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, water flows downhill. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" downhill? That's right, it's because there is zero flowing uphill.

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, electrical current flows from negative to positive. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" from negative to positive? That's right, because none flows from positive to negative.

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, thermal energy flows from warmer to cooler. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" from warmer to cooler? That's right, it's because no thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer.

IBdaMann wrote:
Perhaps tmiddles never mentioned how he has been on tap since August of last year to demonstrate any thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. Whenever he is asked he quickly changes the subject to electromagnetic radiation and points to photons flying all over the place because he can never remember that electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. Doh!

IBdaMann wrote:
Great! You are a Wikipedia warrior. Picking you apart won't even require me to pay attention.

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote: If you put water in a freezer it freezes, locally decreasing energy and entropy inside the water.

Too funny! You are making my day. What exactly is the closed system in this scenario?

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, doesn't the "re" in "re-emit" imply the photons are "re-emitted"? Doesn't that mean they have to be, you know, the same.

JackFou wrote:
You don't even need to take anyone's word for it. The fact that energy must flow in both directions between a hot and a cold object follows directly from an understanding of the mechanism of (radiative) energy transfer on an atomic level and a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Heck, even some basic classical mechanics could explain how atoms bumping into each other would be able to transfer energy in both directions.

JackFou wrote:
Yes, I agree they show all the hallmarks of classical conspiracy theorists. All observations which confirm their world view are valid and all the ones that don't are necessarily false and everyone who maintains those observations is part of the conspiracy.

JackFou wrote:
I just don't think that they have a very deep understanding of physics.

JackFou wrote:
You don't get a good understanding of physics by being smart. You get a good understanding of physics by studying it rigorously. They strike me as guys who did a cursory reading of some physics texts and figured they understood it because there likely was no one around to point out their errors to them.

JackFou wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, you know them better than I do. But my experience with these types is that generally they don't know nearly as much as they think they do.

Into the Night wrote:

JackFou wrote:
You don't even need to take anyone's word for it. The fact that energy must flow in both directions between a hot and a cold object follows directly from an understanding of the mechanism of (radiative) energy transfer on an atomic level and a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Heck, even some basic classical mechanics could explain how atoms bumping into each other would be able to transfer energy in both directions.

Nope. Now you are denying Newton's laws of motion, F=mA. You cannot create momentum out of nothing. Momentum is conserved. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Energy is conserved.

Into the Night wrote:
Newton's laws, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law have not been falsified. You can't just discard them.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.

No one said you can heat a warmer object with a colder object.

JackFou wrote:
You're misrepresenting my argument. That's a strawman fallacy.

JackFou wrote:
If 10 joules per second flow from the cold object to the warm object and 50 joules per second flow from the warm object to the cold object, the result is a net flow of 40 joules per second from warm to cold. Those 40 joules per second are exactly what causes the temperature changes that we observe macroscopically.

JackFou wrote:
In order for the cold object to heat the warm object, the overall spontaneous flow of energy from cold to warm would have to be greater than the flow of energy from warm to cold. That is not possible and no one said it was.

JackFou wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net heat' because heat is exactly a net flow of energy. If 10 joules per second flow from cold to warm and 50 joules per second flow from warm to cold, what we call heat transfer between the two objects is exactly those net 40 joules per second.

JackFou wrote:
You can dig around in thermodynamics all you want but you won't find any answer there.

JackFou wrote:
Every atom of the cold and warm objects interacting with their environment represent and individual flow of energy.

JackFou wrote:
But heat transfer in thermodynamics is concerned with the net flow of energy that results as the sum of all the individual flows.

JackFou wrote:
If you want to claim that energy cannot flow at all from cold to warm, *you* need to explain why in conductive heat transfer atoms from the cold object bumping into the atoms of the hot object cannot transfer energy in their collisions while the ones from the hot object can transfer their energy in collisions.

JackFou wrote:
You would also have to explain how in radiative heat transfer either the cold object would selectively aim its thermal radiation away from the hot object or how the hot object would selectively block incoming radiation from the cold object.

JackFou wrote:
Both of these mechanisms would require either object to have some "knowledge" of the temperature of a distant other object which clearly doesn't exist.

JackFou wrote:
Microscopic reversibility forbids all of those processes of energy transfer from being strictly one-way as you seem to claim.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-W
Where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'W' is work.
2nd law of thermodtynamics: e(t+1)>=e(t)
Where 'e' is entropy, 't' is time.

You conveniently forgot the part about isolated systems.

JackFou wrote:
Entropy can decrease locally if it increases by an equal or greater amount somewhere else.

JackFou wrote:
If you put water in a freezer it freezes, locally decreasing energy and entropy inside the water.

JackFou wrote:
This is possible because your freezer is not an isolated system.

JackFou wrote:
It dissipates heat into the environment, increasing energy and entropy elsewhere.

JackFou wrote:
Earth is not an isolated system either because there is constantly energy pouring in from the sun and energy pouring out into space.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing, or to trap light, heat, or thermal energy, or to cause a cold object to heat a warmer one.

No one is disputing any of that. Just more strawmen from your side.

JackFou wrote:
What greenhouse gases can do is redirect flows of energy by absorbing and re-emitting photons.

JackFou wrote:
It's the same issue I've pointed out above. If you want to claim that CO2 in the atmosphere cannot send energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation towards the surface of the earth, *you* would have to explain how a CO2 molecule up in the air "knows" about the temperature of the surface of the earth and the temperature of space so that it can strategically aim it's photon towards space.

JackFou wrote:
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere don't heat the surface of the earth.

JackFou wrote:
The sun heats the surface of the earth. What greenhouse gases do is they partially prevent the surface of the earth from cooling itself through radiative cooling.

JackFou wrote:
The over all net flow of energy is still from the surface of the earth towards the atmosphere.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one.

But ITN do you disagree with IBD?:

IBdaMann wrote:
"Heat" has no definition.

IBD do you disagree with ITN who is making claims about this "Heat" you say is a word that doesn't even have a definition?

ITN do you have a problem considering this without using the word "heat"?

You are warmer than the walls of the room you are in right now. When the radiance from those walls reaches your skin is it absorbed and converted to thermal energy?

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, water flows downhill. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" downhill? That's right, it's because there is zero flowing uphill.

Wrong. If you look at individual water molecules, they move in random directions at any given point in time due to thermal motion. Only if you look at the overall average motion of many water molecules do you get a net flow following a gradient.

JackFou wrote:
In a real stream you will also get turbulences and such which represent small individual flows in different directions which deviate from the direction of the overall net flow. Fluid dynamics is not trivial.

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, electrical current flows from negative to positive. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" from negative to positive? That's right, because none flows from positive to negative.

Wrong. The direction of flow of electric current is simply a convention.

JackFou wrote:
In fact, "conventional current flow" assumes current flow from positive to negative.

JackFou wrote:
Current flow from negative to positive gives you the exact same result with an opposite sign.

JackFou wrote:
If you want to talk about the movement of electrons inside a conductor, you're still wrong.

JackFou wrote:
Individual electrons do indeed move back and forth.

JackFou wrote:
Just like the water molecules in a stream,

JackFou wrote:
an individual electron moves in random directions at any given point in time.

JackFou wrote:
Electrons are constantly scattered around and bouncing off of each other.

JackFou wrote:
Only if you look at the overall average motion of many electrons do you get a net flow following a gradient.

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, thermal energy flows from warmer to cooler. Do you know why it doesn't "net flow" from warmer to cooler? That's right, it's because no thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer.

I hope you do agree with me that all objects above 0 Kelvin emit thermal radiation.
If that is true then both the hot and the cold object emit thermal radiation in the form of photons. In the process they lose thermal energy. That's what is commonly referred to as "radiative cooling".

If you believe that exactly 0 joules per second are transferred from a cold to a warm object, please do explain to me how either the cold object knows how to strategically aim its photons away from the hot object or how the hot object knows which photons originate from the cold object and how it can specifically avoid absorbing those.

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Perhaps tmiddles never mentioned how he has been on tap since August of last year to demonstrate any thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. Whenever he is asked he quickly changes the subject to electromagnetic radiation and points to photons flying all over the place because he can never remember that electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. Doh!

If you claim that thermal radiation being emitted by one object and absorbed by another object does not represent a flow of thermal energy, then please, do explain to me, in your own words, how radiative heat transfer happens, mechanistically on the scale of atoms. How does thermal energy get from A to B through a vacuum without using photons or electromagnetic radiation?

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Great! You are a Wikipedia warrior. Picking you apart won't even require me to pay attention.

So you don't agree with me that the first and second law of thermodynamics only apply to isolated systems?

JackFou wrote:
You obviously have not independently derived the laws of thermodynamics from first principles through experimentation.

JackFou wrote:
When you say that the 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, you're clearly basing this assertion on some source which you consider authoritative.

JackFou wrote:
Which source is that and what does that source have to say about isolated systems with regards to the first and second law of thermodynamics?

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

JackFou wrote: If you put water in a freezer it freezes, locally decreasing energy and entropy inside the water.

Too funny! You are making my day. What exactly is the closed system in this scenario?

There is no closed system here which I did explain in the very next sentence. All you had to do is read literally one sentence ahead.

JackFou wrote:
*You* are the one who said previously that a closed system is not a requirement for the 1st law of thermodynamics to hold.

JackFou wrote:
I claim the exact opposite namely that the first law of thermodynamics only holds for closed/isolated systems.

JackFou wrote:
So which is it? Do the first and second law of thermodynamics apply only to isolated system or not?

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, doesn't the "re" in "re-emit" imply the photons are "re-emitted"? Doesn't that mean they have to be, you know, the same.

Only if you're trying to play semantic games. But since you're a man of science by your own admission, I'm sure you're only arguing in good faith and you would never try to deflect by reducing a scientific argument to a semantic one, am I right?

JackFou wrote:
Photons don't have names or numbers.

JackFou wrote:
For all intents and purposes, two photons of the same wavelength are indistinguishable.

JackFou wrote:
If I swapped them around somehow, you'd be none the wiser. So if a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon of wavelength, say, 15 µm, transitions to an exited state, falls back down to its previous energy state and emits a photon of 15 µm, I think it's reasonable to call this "re-emitting".

JackFou wrote:
You might disagree with the semantics but the process remains the same, regardless.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

JackFou wrote:
You don't even need to take anyone's word for it. The fact that energy must flow in both directions between a hot and a cold object follows directly from an understanding of the mechanism of (radiative) energy transfer on an atomic level and a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Heck, even some basic classical mechanics could explain how atoms bumping into each other would be able to transfer energy in both directions.

Nope. Now you are denying Newton's laws of motion, F=mA. You cannot create momentum out of nothing. Momentum is conserved. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Energy is conserved.

I am neither creating nor destroying energy or momentum in what I'm describing.

JackFou wrote:
I'm transferring energy from one atom to another.

JackFou wrote:
Think of two billiard balls if you will moving at different speeds perpendicular to each other and let the slower one slam into the faster one. Is energy not transferred from the slower billiard ball to the faster one in this scenario?

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Newton's laws, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law have not been falsified. You can't just discard them.

I'm neither trying to falsify nor discard any of these laws.

JackFou wrote:
I agree with you that they're valid.

JackFou wrote:
I just disagree with you about what they actually say.

JackFou wrote:
I'm claiming that you are misunderstanding them and misrepresenting their consequences.

Into the Night wrote:
No, that IS the argument. You are calling your own argument a strawman fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow'.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles does. So do you. You are again attempting to deny your own argument.

Into the Night wrote:
No atom will accept a photon that has less energy than the atom itself already has. The light is either reflected or passes right on through the atom. Not all photons are equal. See Planck's law.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes you are. I have already described how.

Into the Night wrote:
No. Both balls have energy. They both have momentum. The combined momentum between both balls does not increase. All that happens is that they will change direction if the collide, applying an equal and opposite force to each other momentarily at the moment of collision., which will change their direction. Total momentum is conserved. Energy of the two balls is conserved. One ball may have more energy after the collision than the other. One ball may transfer some of its energy to the other, but they one with less energy does not transfer any energy to the one with greater energy. The combined energy stays the same. It is conserved. Energy is not force. F=mA.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No, that IS the argument. You are calling your own argument a strawman fallacy. Fallacy fallacy.

No, it is not. Saying it is doesn't make it so. You don't get to define my argument.

JackFou wrote:
If 10 joules per second are flowing from the cold object to the warm object and 50 joules per second are flowing from the hot object to the cold object, the cold object is *not* warming the hot object. The hot object is indeed warming the cold object at 40 joules per second.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow'.

Yes there is. If I give you $100 and you give me $75, the result is a net flow of $25 from me to you.
It's really not very hard to understand.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles does. So do you. You are again attempting to deny your own argument.

Nope I am not. It's you who cannot understand the difference in the two arguments presented. They look the same to you, hence your confusion.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No atom will accept a photon that has less energy than the atom itself already has. The light is either reflected or passes right on through the atom. Not all photons are equal. See Planck's law.

This is demonstrably false.

JackFou wrote:
Any atom or molecule will accept a photon that corresponds to an energy difference between the current energy state of the atom/molecule and a higher energy state.

JackFou wrote:
This difference can be smaller than the total amount of energy already absorbed by the molecule/atom.

JackFou wrote:
You can test this by shining light at atoms/molecules excited by a flame and measuring the absorbance. The atoms/molecules will be able to absorb any incoming photons with an energy that corresponds to a transition to a higher energy state, even if that incoming photon has less energy than the atom/molecule already has.

JackFou wrote:
In fact, the definition of a black body demands that a black body absorbs and emits at *all* wavelengths.

JackFou wrote:
Even if what you say *were* true (it isn't), it would still not prevent a warmer body absorbing photons from a colder body.

JackFou wrote:
Due to the statistical nature of thermodynamics, not all atoms or molecules inside a body have the same energy.

JackFou wrote:
Some atoms/molecules will be will have less energy than the average, some will have more.

]JackFou wrote:
So even if your condition were true (it isn't) the atoms/molecules with less than average energy in the warmer body could still accept photons from the atoms/molecules with above average energy in the colder body.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Yes you are. I have already described how.

You have not described how. You have only claimed that.

JackFou wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No. Both balls have energy. They both have momentum. The combined momentum between both balls does not increase. All that happens is that they will change direction if the collide, applying an equal and opposite force to each other momentarily at the moment of collision., which will change their direction. Total momentum is conserved. Energy of the two balls is conserved. One ball may have more energy after the collision than the other. One ball may transfer some of its energy to the other, but they one with less energy does not transfer any energy to the one with greater energy. The combined energy stays the same. It is conserved. Energy is not force. F=mA.

The momentum of a three-dimensional object is a vector quantity with components in x, y and z direction.

JackFou wrote:
If the faster ball has only momentum in, say, the x-direction and the slower ball only has momentum in, say, the y-direction and I set it up such that the slower ball slams into the faster ball exactly along the y-axis, the slower ball will transfer momentum along they y-axis, resulting in an increase in kinetic energy and thus momentum of the faster ball.

JackFou wrote:
The slower ball will have its kinetic energy and thus momentum reduced by the same amount. The overall sum of momentum and energy of both balls remains unchanged and therefore the conservation of energy and momentum is not violated.

Into the Night wrote:
Then demonstrate it.

Into the Night wrote:
But that difference is never negative. You keep arguing that you can use a negative difference.

Into the Night wrote:
But it is related to temperature. Now you are trying to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It states: r=C*e*t^4
Radiance is proportional to temperature, never inversely proportional.

JackFou wrote:Wrong. If you look at individual water molecules, they move in random directions at any given point in time due to thermal motion.

JackFou wrote: Fluid dynamics is not trivial.

IBdaMann wrote:The direction of flow of electric current is simply a convention. In fact, "conventional current flow" assumes current flow from positive to negative.

JackFou wrote:If you want to talk about the movement of electrons inside a conductor, you're still wrong.

JackFou wrote: Individual electrons do indeed move back and forth.

JackFou wrote: Only if you look at the overall average motion of many electrons do you get a net flow following a gradient.

JackFou wrote:I hope you do agree with me that all objects above 0 Kelvin emit thermal radiation.

JackFou wrote: If that is true then both the hot and the cold object emit thermal radiation in the form of photons.

JackFou wrote: If you believe that exactly 0 joules per second are transferred from a cold to a warm object, please do explain to me how either the cold object knows how to strategically aim its photons away from the hot object or how the hot object knows which photons originate from the cold object and how it can specifically avoid absorbing those.

JackFou wrote: If you claim that thermal radiation being emitted by one object and absorbed by another object does not represent a flow of thermal energy, then please, do explain to me, in your own words, how radiative heat transfer happens, mechanistically on the scale of atoms. How does thermal energy get from A to B through a vacuum without using photons or electromagnetic radiation?

IBdaMann wrote:So you don't agree with me that the first and second law of thermodynamics only apply to isolated systems?

JackFou wrote: You obviously have not independently derived the laws of thermodynamics from first principles through experimentation.

JackFou wrote: When you say that the 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, you're clearly basing this assertion on some source which you consider authoritative.

JackFou wrote:There is no closed system here which I did explain in the very next sentence.

JackFou wrote: I claim the exact opposite namely that the first law of thermodynamics only holds for closed/isolated systems.

JackFou wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, doesn't the "re" in "re-emit" imply the photons are "re-emitted"? Doesn't that mean they have to be, you know, the same.

Only if you're trying to play semantic games.

JackFou wrote: Photons don't have names or numbers.

JackFou wrote:For all intents and purposes, two photons of the same wavelength are indistinguishable.