... An object that is radiating at a certain black-body temperature WILL NOT absorb a less-energetic photon from an outside source. This is am extremely well-known corollary of the Second Law. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]
... I have NOT been claiming that no radiation from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body. ... Energy can be absorbed and re-emitted... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-28]
... Here is a fundamental principle of thermodynamics, as related to radiant energy: net incoming radiation from cooler bodies is ALL either reflected, transmitted, or scattered. Any absorption and re-transmission is part of the "transmitted" term. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-10]
Jane can't quote a textbook stating this "fundamental principle" because it's nonsense. For instance, the "transmitted" term describes a body's transparency, not its absorption and re-emission. Here's an introduction:
"A body's behavior with regard to thermal radiation is characterized by its transmission t, absorption a, and reflection p. ...
An opaque body is one that transmits none of the radiation that reaches it, although some may be reflected. That is, t = 0 and a + p = 1
A transparent body is one that transmits all the radiation that reaches it. That is, t = 1 and a = p = 0."
Jane, absorption and re-emission isn't part of the "transmitted" term. They're totally different. The "transmitted" term is zero for opaque bodies like aluminum or blackbodies. If absorption and re-emission were part of the "transmitted" term, blackbodies would be transparent because they absorb all radiation that hits them. If absorption and re-emission were part of the "transmitted" term then both terms would equal 1. But once again, blackbodies can't be transparent.
Also, it's bizarre that Jane insists he's accounting for absorbed and re-emitted radiation in a "transmitted" term that isn't even in his energy conservation equation.
... when this is the hottest body in the room, that figure is ZERO. Zero net radiation absorbed from other, cooler bodies. ... that ZERO of the radiative power output ... THE NET IS ZERO. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-10]
... First, there is no NET radiative power absorbed by a body at one thermodynamic temperature from another body at a lower temperature. ... Those are the statements I made. Anything else is a logical extension of those two principles. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-10]
That's a serious problem, because Jane's first principle is wrong. Net radiative power would only be zero if the source and the chamber walls were at the same temperature.
Jane might consider replacing his incorrect first principle with "conservation of energy" which means power in = power out through a boundary where nothing inside is changing.
... No NET radiative input from chamber walls means anything crossing your precious boundary inward goes right back out. As I have explained to you many times now. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-10]
Jane, it's not my "precious" boundary. It's a general principle called "conservation of energy". Drawing a boundary is needed to apply conservation of energy. Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).
Note that drawing a boundary is needed to apply conservation of energy in all those introductions, just like I've repeatedly explained.
If that's what you think, could you take a few seconds to write down the energy conservation equation (before cancelling terms) that you think is correct?
I could, but I will not. ... I'm not going to take valuable time out of my day ... I'm not going to waste my time. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-09]
If Jane really could write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms, that would only take a few seconds. Endlessly screaming in ALL CAPS and accusing me of lying wastes more of Jane's valuable time than writing down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source:
Jane's power in = ?
Jane's power out = ?