My gosh, you think lasers, LEDs, atomic clocks, etc all came from fantasy.
This is a translation from Clausius' book, The Mechanical Theory of Heat 1875.
"In all cases where a quantity of heat is converted into work and where the body effecting this transformation ultimately returns to its original condition another quantity of heat must necessarily be transferred from a warmer to a colder body and the magnitude of the last quantity of heat in relation to the first depends only on the temperature of the bodies between which heat passes and not upon the nature of the body effecting this transformation or more briefly heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a warmer body"
Clausius did not use the word energy at all in his definition of the second law. He used "heat."
The Georgia State physics site gives this picture with your exact quotation.
[ATTACH=full]626[/ATTACH]
Clausius did not use the word energy at all in his definition of the second law. He used "heat." The Georgia State site specifically cited Clausius but misquoted him where they used the word "energy" when they should have used the word "heat". The site immediately counters that miswording with a picture that shows that they are actually referring to heat since Q always refers to heat in thermodynamic formulae. The site also put that wording and picture in a box titled, "Second Law: Refrigerator."
So in short, you are pinning your whole objection to backscatter on the basis of a site that
1) Explained refrigeration and not radiation thermodynamics.
2) Explicitly referred to Clausius,
3) Misquoted Clausius's wording, by typing energy instead of heat,
4) Clarified the mistake with a diagram that referred solely to Q, which means heat.
That miswording from that site is the only thing on which you are basing your arguments. Isolating misquotes from text while ignoring the very obvious context is intellectual corruption.
