Weather Banter - View Single Post

Alan LeHun · August 10th 15, 12:25 AM posted to uk.sci.weather

In article ,
says...

No, what happens is that the "cold" energy is added to that of the
warm body,

Thank you. This is a fundamental point. The "cold" energy, which is
still energy is *added* to the warm body. Or any body that absorbs it
for that matter. Irrespective of its energy level.

which is emitting blackbody radiation. That will contain more energy
than the blackbody radiation emitted by the cold body so the warm body
will cool. The net energy for the warm body is negative.

This is a direct contradiction of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Yes, but that is not what happens.

Imagine a universe that contains only two objects. A cold one and a hot
one, that are fairly close to each other. Both objects will cool by
radiating energy. My position is that if you increase the distance
between the objects, both objects will cool quicker. If you remove one
object, the other object will cool quicker.

Yes, because the background radiation is the main cold radiation in that case. If your universe has no background radiation then the cold radiation is zero, and you can claim that it does not exist, but only in the hypothetical case of universe without background radiational. Cold radiation still exists in all other real cases.

I will claim that the remaining body will continue to cool, without it
absorbing any radiation from any source whatsoever, and indeed, will
cool at its fastest possible rate.

Please, try to understand what I am saying rather than trying to find extreme scenarios where you think it does not apply.

This was /not/ an extreme scenario. Quite the opposite. It is a scenario
which eliminates all other influences which you seem to hook onto to
muddy the waters and claim phantom support of your case. As you have
done again with background radiation.

Yes, background radiation makes a difference and that is why we
eliminate it from our experiment.

If we have just two bodies, and the energy that they radiate, then it is
easier to see what is happening. If you have to re-introduce external
variables in order to make your case then that is evidence that your
case is flawed. Which it is.

I'm giving up on this now.

--
Alan LeHun