swansont

It’s a false dichotomy, because there are other ways of getting money. If you won the lottery, you’d be rich because you won the lottery, not because of your own work or because of family money.

How? What mechanism gives you photons? Units still don’t work.

So they are only in the material for a short time. How do you get new photons to take their place? Your units don’t work. VT^3 doesn’t have the units of Q

Does your model account for the heat capacity of the material? What happens to the photons?

Who measures time in such experiments with a spring-driven clock with gears? Mechanical clocks lack the necessary precision. But time dilation is symmetric. Clock 1 will run slow compared to clock 2, from clock 2”s perspective. How can a mechanical effect have a clock run both fast and slow? It can’t. Time dilation isn’t a mechanical effect It sounds like you think there is an absolute rest frame.

I just moved, and am a few hours outside the totality region, but was too occupied to arrange to get inside the zone. And am too wiped out to contemplate travel at this point.

Progress

That’s still radiation, and I’m talking about conduction transfer from one material to another, not through a material. When two materials touch the heat transfer rate is much larger than if they are separated by a small amount (especially if that is a vacuum gap) This is inconsistent with the heat transfer being radiative. You burn yourself when you touch the hot water. What does the S-B law say is the heat flow from touching your 1 cm^2 fingertip to the coffee?

This is your claim - heat transfer is from radiation This is also your claim

I don’t know what you mean by cooperation. Government subsidies and tax breaks are not the same as government contracts.

Sure. Has anyone else brought this up?

Customers trade money for goods and services. They are not just giving money to someone. PayPal did not magically appear from nothing.

But you’ve asserted that there is no conduction, that it’s all radiation. Being inconsistent just makes this worse. YOUR IDEA THAT ALL THERMAL ENERGY AND HEAT TRANSFER IS RADIATION. No, you can’t. Not if the cup is cool on the outside.

Free electrons can’t absorb photons; you can’t conserve both momentum and energy if that were to happen. They scatter photons, giving you a lower-energy photon. (Compton scattering) You can absorb a photon in the photoelectric effect because the atom is there to let you conserve momentum. But: acceleration of electrons with light has been done, in various ways https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55472-5 https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/106

Self-made means you did it yourself, with minimal outside help. Not just help from parents. It suggests that anyone can do it if they just work hard enough. There’s a baseline of support that anyone can get, but most uber-wealthy get far more than that, such as subsidies or tax breaks for individuals or companies not available to the average person. If someone hands you a million dollars and you can parlay that into a bigger fortune, good for you. But since most people don’t have access to a million dollars, it’s a tad insulting to imply that it’s a path to wealth accessible to all.

No, that’s the radiation transfer. You can’t use your idea here, that’s circular reasoning. You need empirical evidence to support it. What we’re doing is some basic testing of the idea. But that transfer rate drops dramatically once you stop touching the coffee, which is not what would happen with radiation. Not that much difference. The radiation is going up from the surface. As sethoflagos said, that’s convection. The fluid in this case is the air.

Heat, yes. Radiation, no. You don’t burn yourself by being close to the hot coffee. You have to touch it. That’s not consistent with radiation.

Of course there’s another way: the radiation level is much lower than you think it is. You don’t quantify anything, so you’re not comparing the numbers that would show this. The net amount of radiation is actually quite small near room temperature. The heat transfer is via conduction, which is relatively slow, because it depends on the vibration of the atoms.

If it only absorbs a small percentage, the rest must be transmitted. We already know the transmission is quite high, so this radiation is not being absorbed. But we also know the heat in not being transmitted nearly as quickly as this prediction

If your hypothesis is true it must be true for all solids. I only have to find one example where it fails. A material that transmits radiation in the thermal range does so almost instantaneously. (for 2 cm, this was about 0.1 nanoseconds) It must do so regardless of whether the radiation comes from a thermal or non-thermal source, because photons are photons. But you agree that heat is transmitted much more slowly through such materials. I contend that this falsifies your model. Zinc Selenide does not behave the way you predict it should. I await your next tap-dance You don’t quantify things, so you don’t have a model. If you did the math (or comprehend that math I’ve done for you) you would see that your conjecture is not compatible.

That particular glass. The ones I cited transmit out past 10 microns. http://rmico.com/znse-specifications

You should check the rules of the speculations section. The first one is Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

The bottom line is provide evidence, or a way to test your idea, or the thread will be closed. You are, of course, free to ask questions to improve your understanding of the physics involved.

No. “Belong to the same spectrum” is a pretty meaningless phrase, and it doesn’t say anything about the information a photon carries. If you can’t make predictions, you don’t have a theory. You have a story. A full theoretical framework would havevequations that allowed you to quantify behavior. So you have no evidence and no way of testing your conjecture, which means this falls short of our requirements for the speculations section. That’s what you owe. What you have offered is too hand-wavy, lacking scientific rigor.

No, this is simply not true. The only thing regarding mass and energy carried in the photon is the photon’s own energy. This is independent of the mass of the piece of metal. The photon can have pretty much any energy; you don’t mention the source of the photon, i.e. whether it’s reflected, comes from a transition, or is from thermal emission. But none of those mechanisms is dependent on the mass of the chunk of metal. E=mc^2 would refer to the mass or energy of the metal. This is unrelated to the photons being emitted. I don’t see how the HUP comes into play here; a chunk of metal is a macroscopic object and the uncertainties in position or momentum are wuite small, as is Planck’s constant. Nonsense. You can’t have more mass than energy, since E=mc^2 tells you the minimum energy content you can have. For an object at rest, they are equal. If it has more energy than that, it’s translational kinetic energy, which is not thermal energy. A hot object has more energy than an otherwise identical cool object, but it has more mass, too. Do you have the evidence or test that I asked for?