|
Post by Andrew on Mar 20, 2012 15:49:46 GMT
I was talking about the big bang theory of the universe.
We are surrounded by hot stars but we are not being roasted alive. Emissions from earth are vanishing into space and no emissions are coming back thru the gaps in the stars. Therefore the universe is thought to be finite.
To my way of thinking that is a human centric theory but that is the theory.
If the plasma wave theory is correct then the emissions from Earth would have to connect with something in space and be able to realise earth was hotter than the stuff out there.....but most of the stuff out there is hotter than the earth.An this tenuous logic is so important to you that you feel compelled to call people morons and stupid if they don't join your church? In my church: 1. My oven only gets to a few hundred degrees because energy dissipation is rising exponentially with temperature. 2. The whole city will not get hot, since as the local area is warmed by the oven, energy dissipation is rising exponentially with temperature And for sure the entire universe will not get hot. Under your assumption it does not matter how hot the hot object gets.
A planet shedding a million watts and your cold object is directing it 500,000 watts to space and 500,000 watts to the surface and has not warmed a single joule.You keep repeating this for some reason. You evidently believe if you direct a million watts at a cold object until it radiates all that it receives, it will not have warmed the slightest amount. As i explained before, if you apply 100W to a thin piece of tungsten in a vacuum it does not get endlessly hotter and hotter because, as Stefan found, the energy dissipation is rising exponentially with temperature. In the real world if you heat that tungsten for 6 months, it will not get endlessly hotter and hotter. It just gets hot and stays hot till the metal is vapourised. You should be able to realise that if you place a 1000W light bulb in a small room for a year: 1. That room will not warm to the temperature of the surface of that bulb 2. All the power entering that light bulb is leaving the room.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 21:15:54 GMT
Bump. 2 methods of seeing the absorption by the hotter flame are possible. 1. Both lights illuminate a white surface. However the light from the colder lime passes thru a slit so the white light of lime light is split into component wavelengths. That 'analysed' light then passes thru the hotter sodium flame which only produces mainly the two sodium lines. The screen then shows the continuous spectrum of lime with the yellow of the hotter unanalysed sodium flame superimposed over every single part of the spectrum where the yellow is missing for the lime light so that the projected light is darker where the yellow lines of lime would be. 2. The observer looks thru the hotter flame towards the slit. The eye sees the spectrum of lime projected onto the hotter flame of sodium. The eye sees the brightness of the spectrum of lime and the brightness of the hotter yellow flame over all of the spectrum apart from where the lime light yellow is missing and only the yellow of sodium appears. The eye appears to see two dark lines even though the hotter yellow is present at that point of the spectrum For the record I found a proof that the so called backradiation of climate 'science' is a totally understandable phenomena that is supported by well known observations that radiation from a cold object can be absorbed by a warmer object. books.google.fi/books?id=DqAAAAAAMAAJ&dq=prevost%20theory%20of%20exchanges&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q=prevost%20theory%20of%20exchanges&f=falsethe third paragraph of the page i provided begins with: ‘in performing this experiment we suppose that the light of the lime-ball passes through the sodium-flame before it reaches the slit of the spectroscope’ The point being that when the sodium flame is placed between the screen and the slit or the slit and the eye a different version of the experiment can be done for the hotter sodium flame which now shines yellow light evenly across all of the spectrum of lime, apart from where the yellow from lime is absorbed. Continuing in the third paragraph, Maxwell then describes the dark lines resulting from that experiment.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 21:42:12 GMT
You are too stupid to even understand what is being done with the lime and sodium vapour. The lime is hot the sodium vapor is cooler. The hot lime light is behind the cooler sodium vapour. Without the lime light on the sodium vapour when analyzed with a spectroscope shows two bright lines at two different frequencies. A characteristic unique to the sodium vapour light demonstrating that it only emits certain frequencies of light (2 in this case). Now when the lime behind the sodium vapour light his superheated the spectroscope shows the the two previous bright lines as dark lines because the sodium vapour is now absorbing the higher frequency light from the lime effectively cooling those two frequencies of the sodium vapour light. You are a moron this is not an experiment showing a flow of energy from a cold source to a hot source. Its an experiment showing hot energy is absorbed by the colder sodium vapour! And the significance of that is the sodium vapour only absorbs what it emits. books.google.fi/books?id=DqAAAAAAMAAJ&dq=prevost+theory+of+exchanges&pg=PA225&hl=en#v=onepage&q=prevost%20theory%20of%20exchanges&f=falseIt would really help if you learned to read!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 21:55:14 GMT
You are too stupid to even understand what is being done with the lime and sodium vapour. The lime is hot the sodium vapor is cooler. The hot lime light is behind the cooler sodium vapour. Without the lime light on the sodium vapour when analyzed with a spectroscope shows two bright lines at two different frequencies. A characteristic unique to the sodium vapour light demonstrating that it only emits certain frequencies of light (2 in this case). Now when the lime behind the sodium vapour light his superheated the spectroscope shows the the two previous bright lines as dark lines because the sodium vapour is now absorbing the higher frequency light from the lime effectively cooling those two frequencies of the sodium vapour light. You are a moron this is not an experiment showing a flow of energy from a cold source to a hot source. Its an experiment showing hot energy is absorbed by the colder sodium vapour! And the significance of that is the sodium vapour only absorbs what it emits. books.google.fi/books?id=DqAAAAAAMAAJ&dq=prevost+theory+of+exchanges&pg=PA225&hl=en#v=onepage&q=prevost%20theory%20of%20exchanges&f=falseIt would really help if you learned to read! Funny because the last time i asked you to read that text you could not find the text i asked you to read. this time however i gave you specific directions to the third paragraph of that page. All you have to do is read it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 18, 2016 23:01:48 GMT
You are too stupid to even understand what is being done with the lime and sodium vapour. The lime is hot the sodium vapor is cooler. The hot lime light is behind the cooler sodium vapour. Without the lime light on the sodium vapour when analyzed with a spectroscope shows two bright lines at two different frequencies. A characteristic unique to the sodium vapour light demonstrating that it only emits certain frequencies of light (2 in this case). Now when the lime behind the sodium vapour light his superheated the spectroscope shows the the two previous bright lines as dark lines because the sodium vapour is now absorbing the higher frequency light from the lime effectively cooling those two frequencies of the sodium vapour light. You are a moron this is not an experiment showing a flow of energy from a cold source to a hot source. Its an experiment showing hot energy is absorbed by the colder sodium vapour! And the significance of that is the sodium vapour only absorbs what it emits. books.google.fi/books?id=DqAAAAAAMAAJ&dq=prevost+theory+of+exchanges&pg=PA225&hl=en#v=onepage&q=prevost%20theory%20of%20exchanges&f=falseIt would really help if you learned to read! Funny because the last time i asked you to read that text you could not find the text i asked you to read. this time however i gave you specific directions to the third paragraph of that page. All you have to do is read it. There is nothing on the page claiming to have observed the absorption of a stream of photons from a colder source by a warmer source. . . .unless you believe a gas flame is a stream of photons and other than that has no substance.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 18, 2016 23:38:49 GMT
Funny because the last time I asked you to read that text you could not find the text i asked you to read. this time however i gave you specific directions to the third paragraph of that page. All you have to do is read it. There is nothing on the page claiming to have observed the absorption of a stream of photons from a colder source by a warmer source. . . .unless you believe a gas flame is a stream of photons and other than that has no substance. Your cartoon photon model is not required. What we call light is being absorbed by the hotter flame. Similarly what we call IR from cold objects is absorbed by the simple Vanadium oxide resistive detector of a mass produced warmer detector. Additionally we know that calculations using stefan boltzman exactly match our theory of cold light absorption by hotter objects, where Stefan boltzmann has been mathematically derived, so we can use only stefan boltzmann to understand how radiation impacts space craft in a vacuum or here on Earth. There is no need to think about photons at all.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 19, 2016 5:22:55 GMT
There is nothing on the page claiming to have observed the absorption of a stream of photons from a colder source by a warmer source. . . .unless you believe a gas flame is a stream of photons and other than that has no substance. Your cartoon photon model is not required. What we call light is being absorbed by the hotter flame.
Similarly what we call IR from cold objects is absorbed by the simple Vanadium oxide resistive detector of a mass produced warmer detector.Additionally we know that calculations using stefan boltzman exactly match our theory of cold light absorption by hotter objects, where Stefan boltzmann has been mathematically derived, so we can use only stefan boltzmann to understand how radiation impacts space craft in a vacuum or here on Earth. There is no need to think about photons at all. ROTFLMAO!!! OK Andrew this is a different kind of sensor. But you need to read a bit about it. Vanadium oxide is extremely sensitive! What it is sensitive to is TEMPERATURE. . . . .NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT LIGHT!! The electrical resistance of the material changes a lot for very small changes in temperature. So what the device does is read the temperature of the sensor which will change if the sensor has net outgoing emissions or net incoming emissions. It does not collect any direct information about cold objects but instead interpolates what is going on when the sensor is pointed at a cold object and the Vanadium Oxide cools.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 19, 2016 6:07:36 GMT
Your cartoon photon model is not required. What we call light is being absorbed by the hotter flame. Similarly what we call IR from cold objects is absorbed by the simple Vanadium oxide resistive detector of a mass produced warmer detector. Additionally we know that calculations using stefan boltzman exactly match our theory of cold light absorption by hotter objects, where Stefan boltzmann has been mathematically derived, so we can use only stefan boltzmann to understand how radiation impacts space craft in a vacuum or here on Earth. There is no need to think about photons at all. ROTFLMAO!!! OK Andrew this is a different kind of sensor. But you need to read a bit about it. Vanadium oxide is extremely sensitive! What it is sensitive to is TEMPERATURE. . . . .NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT LIGHT!! The electrical resistance of the material changes a lot for very small changes in temperature. So what the device does is read the temperature of the sensor which will change if the sensor has net outgoing emissions or net incoming emissions. It does not collect any direct information about cold objects but instead interpolates what is going on when the sensor is pointed at a cold object and the Vanadium Oxide cools. My first reference shows the devices are measuring temperature. All of the most up to date references are talking about heating of the detector. A theoretical paper available at NASA from 1960 is referring to the feasibility of radiation cooled bolometers. Presumably a detector that simply adjusts to the scene temperature would always work best if cooled or heated to a temperature that was sufficiently away from the scene temperature and I have never seen any suggestion of that whatsoever. There are also uncooled quantum/photon mode detectors which respond quicker before the detector changes temperature - but I have not researched that yet. At the end of the day why does it matter? Engineers curves should be sufficient to show a relationship between cooling rates between two surfaces by radiation
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 19, 2016 17:20:54 GMT
At the end of the day why does it matter? Engineers curves should be sufficient to show a relationship between cooling rates between two surfaces by radiation It shouldn't matter that you were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 19, 2016 18:22:03 GMT
It shouldn't matter that you were wrong. That is your motto and not mine.
|
|