On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 3:22 PM Robin <mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> wrote:
> In reply to H LV's message of Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:13:59 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >She isn't interested in how the heat is conveyed to the surface. Her > >argument is that it can`t be discounted. > > Whether or not it can be discounted depends on how much of it there is. > One would need to estimate the average power > output of a "black smoker", and multiply by an estimate of their number to > determine that. > An estimate of their number can be obtained by taking some random samples > of their density (number per km) along the > "ring of fire". > > > > >>However, in her mind heat is _only_ kinetic > >> >energy so it can't be radiated into space unless that radiation is > >> >received by a relatively cooler body in space. > >> > >> The relatively cooler body is space itself. > > > > > >She doesn`t think space is an entity that is capable having of a > >temperature. In her mind kinetic energy can only reside in material > bodies. > > Kinetic energy can only reside in material bodies, however radiant energy > and kinetic energy are interchangeable. > Every body at a temperature above absolute zero radiates, and cools down > as it does so. This is why night is colder than > day. > If the Earth didn't radiate heat into space at night the temperature > wouldn't drop. > If it didn't accept radiant energy from the Sun during the day, it > wouldn't get warmer during the day. > Obviously radiant energy can be converted into kinetic energy and vice > versa. > > I find her conception of energy to be thought provoking. Unfortunately, I don't think she realises that it raises 10 times more questions then it answers. Count Rumfordd would say on the nightside the Earth is cooled by frigorific rays from space, whereby the frigorific rays slow the movements of atoms. He had this interesting conception of radiation as being capable of either heating or cooling, i.e. accelerating or dampening the motion of atoms depending on the ray's 'frequency' and the mass of the atoms. Harry > > >Theoretically in a universe with only one black body with given > >temperature, she would say it will shine indefinitely at the same > >temperature unless there is another cooler or hotter black body somewhere > >else in the universe with which it can exchange kinetic energy. > > Nonsense. > > > > > > >The only incoming energy of any significance is from other nearby bodies, > >> i.e. the Sun, and the Moon, and thousands of orbiting satellites. ;) > >> By far the most significant of these being the Sun (obviously). > >> Note the temperature on the Moon when the thermometer is in shadow. > >> ( > >> > https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/168-What-is-the-temperature-on-the-Moon- > >> ) > >> > > > > > > > >She would say that is because the moon has accepted kinetic energy from > the > >Sun. If the moon wasn`t there the Sun would have shed less kinetic energy. > > ...and exactly how is that kinetic energy supposed to be transferred from > the Sun to the Moon if not via radiation? > Let's get real, you can feel yourself getting warmer when you stand in > sunlight. Step into the shade and the effect > diminishes. The difference between the two positions is the > presence/absence of direct radiant energy from the Sun. > [snip] > >
