Remember me
▼ Content

Argumentum ex fitque



Page 1 of 3123>
Argumentum ex fitque22-09-2016 01:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If I ask for a source, and you insult me, that is not a source. That is an insult. Insults do not prove anything. Are we clear on this?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
22-09-2016 11:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If I ask for a source, and you insult me, that is not a source. That is an insult. Insults do not prove anything. Are we clear on this?


If you ask for a source, you are probably not thinking.

A source is nothing more than the opinions of another. They could be right or wrong, just as any other making an argument.

Yes...even if they are professional scientists.

An argument is reasonable (or not) no matter its source.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 14:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If I ask for a source, and you insult me, that is not a source. That is an insult. Insults do not prove anything. Are we clear on this?


If you ask for a source, you are probably not thinking.

A source is nothing more than the opinions of another. They could be right or wrong, just as any other making an argument.

Yes...even if they are professional scientists.

An argument is reasonable (or not) no matter its source.

We use sources to make our arguments because it is totally impractical to derive every new argument from scratch. Do you think, for example, that aircraft engineers feel the need to explicitly derive Newton's laws of motion every time they propose a new wing design?
22-09-2016 15:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
In addition, for definitions and such, sources are necessary to show that at least one other person uses the definition you are claiming is the only true meaning.

In science, we're all wrong. Nobody can predict perfectly, and our theories are probably only shadows of the truth. But the accepted models and theories tend to be closer to the truth than anything that came before.
22-09-2016 15:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: We use sources to make our arguments because it is totally impractical to derive every new argument from scratch.

That's for each person to decide individually.

I develop all my own arguments because I simply don't let others do my thinking for me. I cite science. That's sufficient.

Surface Detail wrote: Do you think, for example, that aircraft engineers feel the need to explicitly derive Newton's laws of motion every time they propose a new wing design?

Moving the goalposts. It is always valid to assume science.

Engineers who use science never provide internet links as "justification."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 15:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
And you accuse me of worshipping and misrepresenting Science...
Edited on 22-09-2016 15:41
22-09-2016 15:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:And you accuse me of worshipping and misrepresenting Science...

Partially correct. I accuse you of worshiping Global Warming, whose WACKY religious dogma is called "The Science" and of grossly misrepresenting science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 16:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: We use sources to make our arguments because it is totally impractical to derive every new argument from scratch.

That's for each person to decide individually.

I develop all my own arguments because I simply don't let others do my thinking for me. I cite science. That's sufficient.

Surface Detail wrote: Do you think, for example, that aircraft engineers feel the need to explicitly derive Newton's laws of motion every time they propose a new wing design?

Moving the goalposts. It is always valid to assume science.

Engineers who use science never provide internet links as "justification."

But unless you perform the experiments yourself or refer to the work of others, you'll never know what is science (your definition) and what isn't.

Take, for example, your assumption that gases emit radiation in accordance with Planck's Law. You believe this to be science, when just a little research indicates that this isn't the case. How can you know whether you are right or wrong in believing that something is science unless you perform a suitable experiment yourself or trust the experimental results of someone else?
22-09-2016 16:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: But unless you perform the experiments yourself or refer to the work of others, you'll never know what is science (your definition) and what isn't.

True. What any person accepts as science is up to that individual.

To qualify as science there are some base, absolute requirements:
1. A falsifiable model
2. It must predict nature
3. It must have endured the testing of the scientific method to some extent, with internal and external consistency having been validated and some amount of direct testing of the model's predicting veracity.

On point 3, the extent to which any model has been tested might be insufficient for some people. No one can mandate what anyone is to "accept."

A great example is radiometric dating. Many Christians don't accept it because it is entirely based on an assumption that they are not ready to accept, i.e. that there is always zero decay material at inception.

The fact is that radiometric dating returns the maximum age an artifact can be based on the assumption of zero inception decay material. Any artifact that had some nonzero quantity of decay material at "inception" will be much younger than indicated.

Is radiometric dating science? It meets the base requirements. Unfortunately, the underlying assumption of "zero inception decay material" is itself unfalsifiable. We cannot travel back in time to measure the amount of decay material at the artifact's inception.

On the one hand, I accept radiometric dating as science; however, I cannot fault anyone who does not for the above reason.

If jwoodward48 were to announce that he doesn't accept Stefan-Boltzmann as science then he would be within his right ... but he would be resonponsible for identifying the shortcomings in the work that has been accomplished.

Surface Detail wrote: Take, for example, your assumption that gases emit radiation in accordance with Planck's Law.

That is not my stated assumption. You are intentionally or otherwise falling for jwoodward48's blatant miswording/mischaracterization/misrepresentation/weaseling of my position.

Planck's law applies to bodies. It applies to all bodies, even those with gaseous atmospheres.

All substances radiate per their temperature (this is where you start to weasel yourself).

All substances have differing absorption signatures.

All substances have differing emission signatures.

...so, you were saying ...?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 17:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
So you agree that Planck's Law applies to bodies, but not to gases?
22-09-2016 17:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You MUST be incorrect in either logic or assumption because your conclusions do not match up with reality. Planck's Law does not apply to exoplanets - we can tell what gases exist in the atmosphere by seeing their absorption spectra removed from the light.
22-09-2016 17:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote:
So you agree that Planck's Law applies to bodies, but not to gases?

One of these days you won't speak in ambiguous language.

What did I write? In what way does it not answer your question?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 17:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
STOP EVADING
22-09-2016 18:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
So you agree that Planck's Law applies to bodies, but not to gases?

One of these days you won't speak in ambiguous language.

What did I write? In what way does it not answer your question?

It's a simple enough question that is intended to clear up an ambiguity in what you wrote, but I'll express it even more succinctly:

Do you think that gases emit radiation in accordance with Planck's Law?
22-09-2016 18:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: It's a simple enough question that is intended to clear up an ambiguity in what you wrote, but I'll express it even more succinctly

I don't appreciate repeating answers, especially in response to vague questions.

Since you are speaking for him, how did what I wrote not answer his question?

I don't mind answering questions but I'm not a trained seal that performs on command. Was there difficulty in reading what I wrote? Help me out here.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 18:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Give a yes or no answer! Stop evading!
Edited on 22-09-2016 18:16
22-09-2016 18:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: It's a simple enough question that is intended to clear up an ambiguity in what you wrote, but I'll express it even more succinctly

I don't appreciate repeating answers, especially in response to vague questions.

Since you are speaking for him, how did what I wrote not answer his question?

I don't mind answering questions but I'm not a trained seal that performs on command. Was there difficulty in reading what I wrote? Help me out here.

I'm not asking you to jump though hoops. I'm simply asking for a yes or no answer to the following question in order to determine your position:

Do you think that gases emit radiation in accordance with Planck's Law?
22-09-2016 18:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: Do you think that gases emit radiation in accordance with Planck's Law?

Yes I do. Of course the only way you'll observe this is to eliminate all thermal conduction and convection.

A cloud of a gas in space will radiate according to Planck's law.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 18:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG





WRONG WRONG WRONG
Edited on 22-09-2016 18:32
22-09-2016 18:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Do you think that gases emit radiation in accordance with Planck's Law?

Yes I do. Of course the only way you'll observe this is to eliminate all thermal conduction and convection.

A cloud of a gas in space will radiate according to Planck's law.

Then you are quite simply wrong.

Gases do not radiate according to Planck's law; they radiate at wavelengths specific to the nature of the gas. For example, astrophysicists can determine the nature (as well as the temperature) of interstellar gas clouds by studying the radiation that they emit. Hydrogen, for example, emits strongly at a wavelength of 21 cm, and this fact has been used by radio astronomers to map the distribution of hydrogen in our galaxy.

Having cleared up this misunderstanding, perhaps we can move forwards.
22-09-2016 18:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, I will admit that your explanation is a bit better at elucidating. Shaming people for not having knowledge isn't productive, but after all they've said to me, a bit of ecstatic "WRONG" is cathartic.

I'll try to include an explanation between my "WRONGs" next time.
22-09-2016 18:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Do you think that gases emit radiation in accordance with Planck's Law?

Yes I do. Of course the only way you'll observe this is to eliminate all thermal conduction and convection.

A cloud of a gas in space will radiate according to Planck's law.

Then you are quite simply wrong.

Gases do not radiate according to Planck's law; they radiate at wavelengths specific to the nature of the gas. For example, astrophysicists can determine the nature (as well as the temperature) of interstellar gas clouds by studying the radiation that they emit.

So you simply misunderstand Planck's law. How did that happen with your UK education?

Planck's says that all substances will radiate differently, that no substance acts as an ideal black body.

Now it all makes sense. You never understood Planck's law. All your arguments were based on you believing that Planck's law treats all substances as the same.

It looks like we're done here unless you have anything to add.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 18:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
No substance can affect thermal radiation. Temperature is the only determinant.


Remember this?
22-09-2016 19:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
No substance can affect thermal radiation. Temperature is the only determinant.


Remember this?


Yes I do.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 19:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Do you think that gases emit radiation in accordance with Planck's Law?

Yes I do. Of course the only way you'll observe this is to eliminate all thermal conduction and convection.

A cloud of a gas in space will radiate according to Planck's law.

Then you are quite simply wrong.

Gases do not radiate according to Planck's law; they radiate at wavelengths specific to the nature of the gas. For example, astrophysicists can determine the nature (as well as the temperature) of interstellar gas clouds by studying the radiation that they emit.

So you simply misunderstand Planck's law. How did that happen with your UK education?

Planck's says that all substances will radiate differently, that no substance acts as an ideal black body.

Now it all makes sense. You never understood Planck's law. All your arguments were based on you believing that Planck's law treats all substances as the same.

It looks like we're done here unless you have anything to add.

No, you misunderstand Planck's Law. Planck's Law refers specifically to black bodies. There is no term in Planck's Law corresponding to the nature of the emitting body.

But if you are finally ready to admit that substances do indeed emit radiation according to their nature (as well as their temperature), then we can continue.
22-09-2016 19:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
This reminds me of Trump's birther move. Once he realized that birtherism wasn't liked anymore, he threw all the blame onto Clinton, despite prevalent evidence that he WAS in fact a birther.
22-09-2016 19:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: So you simply misunderstand Planck's law.

No, my genius British mentor guru product of the amazing British education system, we have already established that you are just winging it, that you are flailing in the dark and it is very amusing.


Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law refers specifically to black bodies. There is no term in Planck's Law corresponding to the nature of the emitting body.

Yes my brilliant British Einstein, since Planck's applies to everything, all radiation from all substances will adhere to Planck's law, regardless of the specific absorption and radiation signatures of each substance.

Did you notice that Newton's laws of motion work for birds, stones, bicycles and all sorts of different things with different masses and different colors?

So, my favorite overflowing cup of British grey matter, let's focus on the exact part you don't grasp. What part is just too complicated?

Surface Detail wrote: But if you are finally ready to admit that substances do indeed emit radiation according to their nature (as well as their temperature), then we can continue.

I've been saying this the whole time. You're another moron who doesn't know the difference between variables and constants.

Oh wait! I should have known. You think emissivity is a variable. Now it makes sense.

Hey, in your marvelous UK sage factory, how did they no teach you about constants and variables?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 22:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law refers specifically to black bodies. There is no term in Planck's Law corresponding to the nature of the emitting body.

Yes my brilliant British Einstein, since Planck's applies to everything, all radiation from all substances will adhere to Planck's law, regardless of the specific absorption and radiation signatures of each substance

Planck's law does not apply to everything; it applies to black bodies.

Solids usually emit light approximately as a black body would, that is, roughly according to Planck's law. This means that, when heated, they emit light over a continuous range of wavelengths. If you shine this light through a prism, you get a continuous spectrum, like this:



Gases, on the other hand, do not emit light according to Planck's law when heated. Instead, they emit light at a series of specific wavelengths. These wavelengths depend on the gas emitting the light. If you shine this light through a prism, you get line spectrum. This is the line spectrum for neon:



With me so far?
22-09-2016 22:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
A good way of thinking of Planck's Law is that it is like the Ideal Gas Law - only ideal, nonexistent objects follow it perfectly; many substances follow it pretty closely; but many substances or collections thereof do not follow it.
23-09-2016 05:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote:With me so far?

Give me the graph for power vs. wavelength.

I don't do well with mixed apples and oranges.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 08:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Haven't you had that posted to you several times already or are you too thick to realize what you are looking at ?
23-09-2016 11:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Give me the graph for power vs. wavelength.

I don't do well with mixed apples and oranges

I don't know what you mean by mixed apples and oranges here.

That was simply a comparison of what you actually see when you disperse the light from a hot solid and from a hot gas. You can see for yourself how different the spectra look. But yes, here's how the radiated light looks in terms of intensity (power per unit area) vs. wavelength.

This graph shows intensity vs. wavelength for black bodies at different temperatures, from Planck's law:



Most solids will give emission curves looking something like this. You can see how the intensity is a continuous function of wavelength and so gives a continuous spectrum.

While this graph shows the intensity vs. wavelength for neon:



In this case, the intensity has large peaks at wavelengths specific to neon. The large spike at 5852.49 angstroms corresponds to the bright yellow line you can see in the line spectrum in my earlier post. Both the absolute and relative intensities of these spikes change with the temperature of the gas, but their wavelengths remain constant.

Does that make sense?
23-09-2016 14:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: I don't know what you mean by mixed apples and oranges here.

Of course you wouldn't. You were educated in the UK. You apparently were never taught that a spectrograph shows different things from a graph of wavelength vs. power.

Different things.

...or perhaps you weren't taught the meaning of "apples and oranges."

Different things.

Anyway, I shouldn't have to spell it out for you but you still have not shown how the power per frequency changes as temperature changes for any gas, much less for various different gases, nor have you shown how any violate Planck's law.

Can you find a video, perhaps, of power vs. wavelength of a gas as temperature is changed? i.e. a realtime observation of how the power distribution over the wavelengths changes per the change in temperature?

That would be an interesting discussion. Obviously any single graph/chart that doesn't show what you are trying to conclude is of little concern to me and I'm not going to simply accept your WACKY conclusion based solely on your insistence.

I would be very much interested in a discussion of the power distribution per T that I mentioned above.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 14:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The first and second pair of images showed the same thing.

The gases violate Planck's Law because they don't emit black body radiation. I can post an explanation on the quantum level later. But the gas and the black body spectra are obviously different.
23-09-2016 16:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:I can post an explanation on the quantum level later.

Are you working on learning how to cut-n-paste it? The good news is that once you learn that, you can cut-n-paste just about everything.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 17:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: I don't know what you mean by mixed apples and oranges here.

Of course you wouldn't. You were educated in the UK. You apparently were never taught that a spectrograph shows different things from a graph of wavelength vs. power.

Different things.

...or perhaps you weren't taught the meaning of "apples and oranges."

Different things.

Anyway, I shouldn't have to spell it out for you but you still have not shown how the power per frequency changes as temperature changes for any gas, much less for various different gases, nor have you shown how any violate Planck's law.

Can you find a video, perhaps, of power vs. wavelength of a gas as temperature is changed? i.e. a realtime observation of how the power distribution over the wavelengths changes per the change in temperature?

That would be an interesting discussion. Obviously any single graph/chart that doesn't show what you are trying to conclude is of little concern to me and I'm not going to simply accept your WACKY conclusion based solely on your insistence.

I would be very much interested in a discussion of the power distribution per T that I mentioned above.

The graph of intensity vs. wavelength that I just posted for neon illustrates that neon does not radiate according to Planck's law. There is no temperature for which Planck's law can give a graph of intensity vs. wavelength consisting of a set of peaks of various heights. Ask a mathematician if you don't believe me.
23-09-2016 17:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Surface Detail wrote: The graph of intensity vs. wavelength that I just posted for neon illustrates that neon does not radiate according to Planck's law.

No it does not. Your graph does not support your wild conclusion, despite your insistence.

Why do you not acquire what I described?

On the topic, what "climate" science have you reviewed and understand convinced you that "greenhouse effect" is real and active in our lives?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 17:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If you don't believe him, I can mathematically prove that. (mutter mutter "mathematically illiterate" mutter linear algebra mutter show them, they'll see)
23-09-2016 17:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:If you don't believe him, I can mathematically prove that. (mutter mutter "mathematically illiterate" mutter linear algebra mutter show them, they'll see)

I love proofs. That would be great.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 17:44
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The graph of intensity vs. wavelength that I just posted for neon illustrates that neon does not radiate according to Planck's law.

No it does not. Your graph does not support your wild conclusion, despite your insistence.

Of course it does. How could the continuous function that constitutes Planck's law possibly give the series of peaks making up the neon spectrum? That's possibly the daftest thing you've come out with yet.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Argumentum ex fitque:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact