Remember me
▼ Content

Black Body Radiation and Stefan-Boltzmann



Page 1 of 212>
Black Body Radiation and Stefan-Boltzmann24-05-2017 16:47
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
The link is to a recreation of Max Planck's experiment on Black Body Radiation. He had a steel bar heated in a blast furnace expecting it to emit black light. If he would've thought to heat one side of the steel bar then he probably would've seen what my video shows.
When talking about Stefan-Boltzmann and emissivity my experiment shows it. The steel plate is conducting heat from the blow torch. The experiment shows that the more energy in a black body the more energy it will emit. And because the heat is being conducted through a Black Body the amount of heat radiated varies. This is why there are different colors being emitted.
I have sent a link of my experiment to a science group and told them to check it out. Black Holes in reality are probably stars that are older than Brown Dwarfs. And this from a repeating a basic experiment. With Max Planck, because he did not see black light being emitted as he expected he changed his work. This is why Planck's Constant was realized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

My experiment; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvm4hurlock

And for anyone wondering, soot in the Arctic is most likely emitting black light into the snow and ice. With roads paved using asphalt, same thing, black light is probably being emitted into the ground. This decreases the amount of electromagnetic radiation being refracted/emitted into our atmosphere.
And the experiment with your smartphone, might help everyone to understand somewhat about how light is absorbed and refracted depending on it's wavelength.


Jim
24-05-2017 18:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
James_ wrote:
@All,
The link is to a recreation of Max Planck's experiment on Black Body Radiation. He had a steel bar heated in a blast furnace expecting it to emit black light. If he would've thought to heat one side of the steel bar then he probably would've seen what my video shows.
When talking about Stefan-Boltzmann and emissivity my experiment shows it. The steel plate is conducting heat from the blow torch. The experiment shows that the more energy in a black body the more energy it will emit. And because the heat is being conducted through a Black Body the amount of heat radiated varies. This is why there are different colors being emitted.
I have sent a link of my experiment to a science group and told them to check it out. Black Holes in reality are probably stars that are older than Brown Dwarfs. And this from a repeating a basic experiment. With Max Planck, because he did not see black light being emitted as he expected he changed his work. This is why Planck's Constant was realized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

My experiment; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvm4hurlock

And for anyone wondering, soot in the Arctic is most likely emitting black light into the snow and ice. With roads paved using asphalt, same thing, black light is probably being emitted into the ground. This decreases the amount of electromagnetic radiation being refracted/emitted into our atmosphere.
And the experiment with your smartphone, might help everyone to understand somewhat about how light is absorbed and refracted depending on it's wavelength.
Jim

Stupid, on many levels.

1. There is no such thing as black light. Black is the absence of light. Max Planck was aware of this.

2. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source and all Wikipedia references are summarily dismissed.

3. Your little demonstration is not an experiment. Learn what is required for an experiment.

4. Black holes are not stars, of any age. There is no "probability" involved. Black holes are insanely large masses whose gravitational field is too strong for light to escape. Learn what an "event horizon" is.

5. This post has nothing to do Stefan-Boltzmann or its title.


.


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
24-05-2017 18:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
@All,
The link is to a recreation of Max Planck's experiment on Black Body Radiation. He had a steel bar heated in a blast furnace expecting it to emit black light. If he would've thought to heat one side of the steel bar then he probably would've seen what my video shows.
When talking about Stefan-Boltzmann and emissivity my experiment shows it. The steel plate is conducting heat from the blow torch. The experiment shows that the more energy in a black body the more energy it will emit. And because the heat is being conducted through a Black Body the amount of heat radiated varies. This is why there are different colors being emitted.
I have sent a link of my experiment to a science group and told them to check it out. Black Holes in reality are probably stars that are older than Brown Dwarfs. And this from a repeating a basic experiment. With Max Planck, because he did not see black light being emitted as he expected he changed his work. This is why Planck's Constant was realized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

My experiment; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvm4hurlock

And for anyone wondering, soot in the Arctic is most likely emitting black light into the snow and ice. With roads paved using asphalt, same thing, black light is probably being emitted into the ground. This decreases the amount of electromagnetic radiation being refracted/emitted into our atmosphere.
And the experiment with your smartphone, might help everyone to understand somewhat about how light is absorbed and refracted depending on it's wavelength.
Jim


What in the hell are you talking about? What do you think "black light" is? What do you think you showed in your "experiment" besides that you could heat a plate with a torch?
24-05-2017 19:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wade,
Are you really that stupid or are you working at it ? I think you are rude for a reason. And that is because you do not understand science. After all black light is light that is BLACK for the same reason light is any other color we see.
What do you not understand about light ?

Wade, why are you in this forum ? I don't post in here for your entertainment which is what you want. That's kind of sad.
Edited on 24-05-2017 19:52
24-05-2017 21:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wade,
Are you really that stupid or are you working at it ? I think you are rude for a reason. And that is because you do not understand science. After all black light is light that is BLACK for the same reason light is any other color we see.
What do you not understand about light ?

Wade, why are you in this forum ? I don't post in here for your entertainment which is what you want. That's kind of sad.


I asked you what you thought black light was and you answer with the most preposterous answer possible. Black is the absence of light. Black is the absence of color. Across the entire spectrum there is no such thing as "black light".

You haven't a clue what Planck was looking for and you still haven't told us what in hell you think you were accomplishing by heating a steel plate with a torch.

You certainly accomplished one thing - you made it plain that despite my ideas that you were smart enough to learn, you are not. You don't have a the slightest clue about the world around you and you're not bright enough to learn.
24-05-2017 21:36
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wade,
Are you really that stupid or are you working at it ? I think you are rude for a reason. And that is because you do not understand science. After all black light is light that is BLACK for the same reason light is any other color we see.
What do you not understand about light ?

Wade, why are you in this forum ? I don't post in here for your entertainment which is what you want. That's kind of sad.


I asked you what you thought black light was and you answer with the most preposterous answer possible. Black is the absence of light. Black is the absence of color. Across the entire spectrum there is no such thing as "black light".

You haven't a clue what Planck was looking for and you still haven't told us what in hell you think you were accomplishing by heating a steel plate with a torch.

You certainly accomplished one thing - you made it plain that despite my ideas that you were smart enough to learn, you are not. You don't have a the slightest clue about the world around you and you're not bright enough to learn.


Read your own post. You asked what in the hell I was talking about and then said that all I showed was that I knew how to heat a piece of metal.
I know you can do better so will stay out of your way. I do have other
projects to pursue.
24-05-2017 21:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wade,
Are you really that stupid or are you working at it ? I think you are rude for a reason. And that is because you do not understand science. After all black light is light that is BLACK for the same reason light is any other color we see.
What do you not understand about light ?

Wade, why are you in this forum ? I don't post in here for your entertainment which is what you want. That's kind of sad.


I asked you what you thought black light was and you answer with the most preposterous answer possible. Black is the absence of light. Black is the absence of color. Across the entire spectrum there is no such thing as "black light".

You haven't a clue what Planck was looking for and you still haven't told us what in hell you think you were accomplishing by heating a steel plate with a torch.

You certainly accomplished one thing - you made it plain that despite my ideas that you were smart enough to learn, you are not. You don't have a the slightest clue about the world around you and you're not bright enough to learn.


Read your own post. You asked what in the hell I was talking about and then said that all I showed was that I knew how to heat a piece of metal.
I know you can do better so will stay out of your way. I do have other
projects to pursue.


Do those other projects include making a brighter "black light"?
24-05-2017 22:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
James_ wrote: Read your own post. You asked what in the hell I was talking about and then said that all I showed was that I knew how to heat a piece of metal.

I know you can do better so will stay out of your way. I do have other
projects to pursue.

Did you ever get around to stating "greenhouse effect" in your own words?


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
24-05-2017 22:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Read your own post. You asked what in the hell I was talking about and then said that all I showed was that I knew how to heat a piece of metal.

I know you can do better so will stay out of your way. I do have other
projects to pursue.

Did you ever get around to stating "greenhouse effect" in your own words?


They seem to be arguing what 'black' means.


The Parrot Killer
24-05-2017 22:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Read your own post. You asked what in the hell I was talking about and then said that all I showed was that I knew how to heat a piece of metal.

I know you can do better so will stay out of your way. I do have other
projects to pursue.

Did you ever get around to stating "greenhouse effect" in your own words?


They seem to be arguing what 'black' means.


I'm wondering what he thought he showed when he gave us a video of him heating a disk of what is apparently steel.
24-05-2017 23:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Read your own post. You asked what in the hell I was talking about and then said that all I showed was that I knew how to heat a piece of metal.

I know you can do better so will stay out of your way. I do have other
projects to pursue.

Did you ever get around to stating "greenhouse effect" in your own words?


They seem to be arguing what 'black' means.


I'm wondering what he thought he showed when he gave us a video of him heating a disk of what is apparently steel.


I think it's pretty obvious he does not understand what light is or what a spectrum is.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 00:16
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
This might be too advanced for you guys. I mean seriously you guys don't understand what black body radiation is ?
25-05-2017 00:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
This might be too advanced for you guys. I mean seriously you guys don't understand what black body radiation is ?


The combined power of all frequencies of light over a fixed surface area as a result of the temperature of that body above absolute zero.

There is no frequency for 'black' light. There is no such thing.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-05-2017 00:56
25-05-2017 00:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
This might be too advanced for you guys. I mean seriously you guys don't understand what black body radiation is ?


So that is what you think black-body radiation is? Wonderful.
25-05-2017 00:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: Read your own post. You asked what in the hell I was talking about and then said that all I showed was that I knew how to heat a piece of metal.

I know you can do better so will stay out of your way. I do have other
projects to pursue.

Did you ever get around to stating "greenhouse effect" in your own words?


If that is what he thinks black-body radiation is imagine what he must think greenhouse effect is.
25-05-2017 01:01
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This might be too advanced for you guys. I mean seriously you guys don't understand what black body radiation is ?


The combined power of all frequencies of light over a fixed surface area as a result of the temperature of that body above absolute zero.

There is no frequency for 'black' light. There is no such thing.


And yet black is between brown and blue and this is because the amplitude of the photons are different. But as I mentioned Max Planck heated a piece of steel in a blast furnace. When it glowed orangish red he changed the math he did and came up with his constant. If not for that there would be no Albert Einstein.
25-05-2017 01:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This might be too advanced for you guys. I mean seriously you guys don't understand what black body radiation is ?


The combined power of all frequencies of light over a fixed surface area as a result of the temperature of that body above absolute zero.

There is no frequency for 'black' light. There is no such thing.


And yet black is between brown and blue and this is because the amplitude of the photons are different. But as I mentioned Max Planck heated a piece of steel in a blast furnace. When it glowed orangish red he changed the math he did and came up with his constant. If not for that there would be no Albert Einstein.


There is no frequency for brown either.

Amplitude is not frequency.

Are you saying Albert Einstein came out of a blast furnace? That's incredibly crass.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 01:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Into the Night wrote: I think it's pretty obvious he does not understand what light is or what a spectrum is.

He's the perfect warmizombie.

At least he knows that zero nanometers ("black" light) falls between 480 nm (blue) and 570 nm (yellow/brown), i.e.

480 nm < 0 nm < 570 nm.

I did not know this previously.


.


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
25-05-2017 02:28
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This might be too advanced for you guys. I mean seriously you guys don't understand what black body radiation is ?


The combined power of all frequencies of light over a fixed surface area as a result of the temperature of that body above absolute zero.

There is no frequency for 'black' light. There is no such thing.


And yet black is between brown and blue and this is because the amplitude of the photons are different. But as I mentioned Max Planck heated a piece of steel in a blast furnace. When it glowed orangish red he changed the math he did and came up with his constant. If not for that there would be no Albert Einstein.


There is no frequency for brown either.

Amplitude is not frequency.

Are you saying Albert Einstein came out of a blast furnace? That's incredibly crass.


You need to be mindful that you have no idea how Max Planck went about his work. Also, the colors being emitted by heating a piece of steel are visible for what reason ?

None of this is meant to be personal except maybe for wade. If any of you try it then what would you say when a piece of steel starts emitting different colors ?

Also you might consider reading Max Planck's autobiography.
Edited on 25-05-2017 02:43
25-05-2017 03:04
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: I think it's pretty obvious he does not understand what light is or what a spectrum is.

He's the perfect warmizombie.

At least he knows that zero nanometers ("black" light) falls between 480 nm (blue) and 570 nm (yellow/brown), i.e.

480 nm < 0 nm < 570 nm.

I did not know this previously.


.


Your jealousy is flattering, Thank You.
25-05-2017 03:06
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
Have another project that I've been purduing. As for the experiment, try it for yourselves.
25-05-2017 03:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
This might be too advanced for you guys. I mean seriously you guys don't understand what black body radiation is ?


The combined power of all frequencies of light over a fixed surface area as a result of the temperature of that body above absolute zero.

There is no frequency for 'black' light. There is no such thing.


And yet black is between brown and blue and this is because the amplitude of the photons are different. But as I mentioned Max Planck heated a piece of steel in a blast furnace. When it glowed orangish red he changed the math he did and came up with his constant. If not for that there would be no Albert Einstein.


There is no frequency for brown either.

Amplitude is not frequency.

Are you saying Albert Einstein came out of a blast furnace? That's incredibly crass.


You need to be mindful that you have no idea how Max Planck went about his work. Also, the colors being emitted by heating a piece of steel are visible for what reason ?

None of this is meant to be personal except maybe for wade. If any of you try it then what would you say when a piece of steel starts emitting different colors ?

Also you might consider reading Max Planck's autobiography.


I know how he went about his work. He actually understood what he was doing. You don't seem to get a grasp of what light is at all.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 03:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
@All,
Have another project that I've been purduing. As for the experiment, try it for yourselves.


I was welding a fitting for my airplane just last night.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 05:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
James_ wrote: You need to be mindful that you have no idea how Max Planck went about his work.

You just said nothing. You aren't even capable of discussing Max Planck's work.


James_ wrote: Also, the colors being emitted by heating a piece of steel are visible for what reason ?

Also, we equate "black" with "no light" for what reason?

Black is not emitted. Black is perceived when no light is emitted.

James_ wrote: If any of you try it then what would you say when a piece of steel starts emitting different colors ?

Wein's Displacement Law answers your question nicely.

James_ wrote: Also you might consider reading Max Planck's autobiography.

Also, you might consider learning Wein's, Planck's, Stefan-Boltzmann and Kirchoff's.


.


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
25-05-2017 14:27
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
I have sent a link to some people who might find this interesting. It seems that you two can only quote what is found online. A historian familiar with Max Planck's actual work might need to be asked if Max Planck calculated a frequency for black light being emitted before he calculated his constant.

James_
Edited on 25-05-2017 14:55
25-05-2017 16:13
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
I may buy this book to see if it's author included any experiments that Max Planck performed. If you notice in this series that Albert Einstein's work comes after Max Planck's work.
What would be interesting to find out is if steel heated in a furnace at temperature t and is removed then emits light in different wavelengths. This simply means that as the temperature in the furnace is raised and the steel is heated to that temperature that when removed will emit a different wavelength of light. I think this might be the only practical way to see if brown then black light is emitted as the experiment I had done seems to demonstrate.
But this would be for someone that would benefit from such work such as an astrophysicist or an astronomer.

https://www.amazon.com/Planck-Radiation-Elements-Quantum-Physics-ebook/dp/B00OGSQ8VW/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1495717441&sr=8-4&keywords=max+planck
25-05-2017 17:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
@All,
I may buy this book to see if it's author included any experiments that Max Planck performed. If you notice in this series that Albert Einstein's work comes after Max Planck's work.
What would be interesting to find out is if steel heated in a furnace at temperature t and is removed then emits light in different wavelengths. This simply means that as the temperature in the furnace is raised and the steel is heated to that temperature that when removed will emit a different wavelength of light. I think this might be the only practical way to see if brown then black light is emitted as the experiment I had done seems to demonstrate.
But this would be for someone that would benefit from such work such as an astrophysicist or an astronomer.

https://www.amazon.com/Planck-Radiation-Elements-Quantum-Physics-ebook/dp/B00OGSQ8VW/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1495717441&sr=8-4&keywords=max+planck


Let me get this straight - you think that "black light" was emitted from your experiment? Where was this?

You also don't know anything about what Einstein had to say nor why he wasn't building ON Planck's work but correcting it.

And Einstein's fame had nothing to do with him describing photons as a discrete particle of energy.

Now - where was this black light you were "making"?
25-05-2017 19:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
I have sent a link to some people who might find this interesting. It seems that you two can only quote what is found online. A historian familiar with Max Planck's actual work might need to be asked if Max Planck calculated a frequency for black light being emitted before he calculated his constant.

James_

Max Planck wasn't that stupid.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 19:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
I have sent a link to some people who might find this interesting. It seems that you two can only quote what is found online. A historian familiar with Max Planck's actual work might need to be asked if Max Planck calculated a frequency for black light being emitted before he calculated his constant.

James_

Max Planck wasn't that stupid.


Did you get this? All we can do is quote what is on-line. But he sent a link to someone.

He doesn't know that "black light" was nothing more than a pseudonym for thermal radiation. Radiation that you could not see.
25-05-2017 20:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
I have sent a link to some people who might find this interesting. It seems that you two can only quote what is found online. A historian familiar with Max Planck's actual work might need to be asked if Max Planck calculated a frequency for black light being emitted before he calculated his constant.

James_

Max Planck wasn't that stupid.


Did you get this? All we can do is quote what is on-line. But he sent a link to someone.

He doesn't know that "black light" was nothing more than a pseudonym for thermal radiation. Radiation that you could not see.


Nope. There is no such thing as 'black light'. The bulbs marketed as 'black' light bulbs put out violet and soft UV-A light (lower frequencies of the UV-A band). These are often very low power, and won't even produce a tan (which is better obtained with higher frequency UV-A light).

Thermal energy does not radiate. Electromagnetic energy does. Electromagnetic energy is emitted by any substance containing thermal energy above absolute zero. This is known as heating by radiance. It is the only form of heating that can cross a vacuum.

His problem is a familiar one. Worshiping the Holy Link is simply not thinking. It is letting someone else think for you, and claiming their argument as one's own. Such lazy thinking leaves one unable to recognize the fallacies in the argument of another, since they are constantly grasping at other's arguments to fill in their inability to think for themselves.

I know one guy on another board that is so into this he presents nothing but Holy Links for all of his arguments. Any disagreement with his God the Holy Link results in being called a liar and a host of other names.

I despise such lazy thinking.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 20:45
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
I have sent a link to some people who might find this interesting. It seems that you two can only quote what is found online. A historian familiar with Max Planck's actual work might need to be asked if Max Planck calculated a frequency for black light being emitted before he calculated his constant.

James_

Max Planck wasn't that stupid.


Did you get this? All we can do is quote what is on-line. But he sent a link to someone.

He doesn't know that "black light" was nothing more than a pseudonym for thermal radiation. Radiation that you could not see.


Nope. There is no such thing as 'black light'. The bulbs marketed as 'black' light bulbs put out violet and soft UV-A light (lower frequencies of the UV-A band). These are often very low power, and won't even produce a tan (which is better obtained with higher frequency UV-A light).

Thermal energy does not radiate. Electromagnetic energy does. Electromagnetic energy is emitted by any substance containing thermal energy above absolute zero. This is known as heating by radiance. It is the only form of heating that can cross a vacuum.

His problem is a familiar one. Worshiping the Holy Link is simply not thinking. It is letting someone else think for you, and claiming their argument as one's own. Such lazy thinking leaves one unable to recognize the fallacies in the argument of another, since they are constantly grasping at other's arguments to fill in their inability to think for themselves.

I know one guy on another board that is so into this he presents nothing but Holy Links for all of his arguments. Any disagreement with his God the Holy Link results in being called a liar and a host of other names.

I despise such lazy thinking.


Parrot Killer,
So you're only going to allow something that supports your beliefs ? This means this forum is here to promote your propaganda. After all, if I post a link to an experiment that I had tried is my not thinking according to you.
This is a Troll's Paradise.
25-05-2017 21:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
I have sent a link to some people who might find this interesting. It seems that you two can only quote what is found online. A historian familiar with Max Planck's actual work might need to be asked if Max Planck calculated a frequency for black light being emitted before he calculated his constant.

James_

Max Planck wasn't that stupid.


Did you get this? All we can do is quote what is on-line. But he sent a link to someone.

He doesn't know that "black light" was nothing more than a pseudonym for thermal radiation. Radiation that you could not see.


Nope. There is no such thing as 'black light'. The bulbs marketed as 'black' light bulbs put out violet and soft UV-A light (lower frequencies of the UV-A band). These are often very low power, and won't even produce a tan (which is better obtained with higher frequency UV-A light).

Thermal energy does not radiate. Electromagnetic energy does. Electromagnetic energy is emitted by any substance containing thermal energy above absolute zero. This is known as heating by radiance. It is the only form of heating that can cross a vacuum.

His problem is a familiar one. Worshiping the Holy Link is simply not thinking. It is letting someone else think for you, and claiming their argument as one's own. Such lazy thinking leaves one unable to recognize the fallacies in the argument of another, since they are constantly grasping at other's arguments to fill in their inability to think for themselves.

I know one guy on another board that is so into this he presents nothing but Holy Links for all of his arguments. Any disagreement with his God the Holy Link results in being called a liar and a host of other names.

I despise such lazy thinking.


Parrot Killer,
So you're only going to allow something that supports your beliefs ? This means this forum is here to promote your propaganda. After all, if I post a link to an experiment that I had tried is my not thinking according to you.
This is a Troll's Paradise.


My sources are authoritative. They come from the theories of science themselves. I need no other sources.

Posting a link to an experiment you yourself conducted is not the Holy Link I was describing. You should really learn what a prosecutor's fallacy is.

Your experiment is going to be judged by others who know the science. One of the aspects of science is that it does not accept supporting evidence. It only uses conflicting evidence.

The reason is a simple one: Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. That means that any observation is necessarily interpreted by you according to your own personal view of how the universe works. Each of us carries around this personal model of the universe. It is different for each of us, and is as unique as a fingerprint.

This means your interpretation of data gathered from any observation is subject to interpretation differently by each individual. Many of these interpretations are very similar, since we both grew up in a Western culture, that allows us to take the universe apart, make a model of a bit of it, learn how it works, and integrate what we learned back into the whole.

Not all cultures operate this way.

For experimental data to be accepted, then, it either must not conflict with existing theories of science, or it must show specifically why a theory should be destroyed. Experiments often inspire new theories. They are designed to try to disprove a theory, not support it.

How do you know the results of an experiment is capable of this? That's the judgement call that each of us has to make. The current philosophy of science is designed to destroy, not support theories through experimentation. Science is conservative in this way. It is how it keeps religion out of science.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 21:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
I have sent a link to some people who might find this interesting. It seems that you two can only quote what is found online. A historian familiar with Max Planck's actual work might need to be asked if Max Planck calculated a frequency for black light being emitted before he calculated his constant.

James_

Max Planck wasn't that stupid.


Did you get this? All we can do is quote what is on-line. But he sent a link to someone.

He doesn't know that "black light" was nothing more than a pseudonym for thermal radiation. Radiation that you could not see.


Nope. There is no such thing as 'black light'. The bulbs marketed as 'black' light bulbs put out violet and soft UV-A light (lower frequencies of the UV-A band). These are often very low power, and won't even produce a tan (which is better obtained with higher frequency UV-A light).

Thermal energy does not radiate. Electromagnetic energy does. Electromagnetic energy is emitted by any substance containing thermal energy above absolute zero. This is known as heating by radiance. It is the only form of heating that can cross a vacuum.

His problem is a familiar one. Worshiping the Holy Link is simply not thinking. It is letting someone else think for you, and claiming their argument as one's own. Such lazy thinking leaves one unable to recognize the fallacies in the argument of another, since they are constantly grasping at other's arguments to fill in their inability to think for themselves.

I know one guy on another board that is so into this he presents nothing but Holy Links for all of his arguments. Any disagreement with his God the Holy Link results in being called a liar and a host of other names.

I despise such lazy thinking.


What do you mean thermal radiatiation does not radiate? ALL parts of the electromagnetic bands from ultra-low frequency to cosmic waves radiate. Sound is a radiation.

As I stated - Planck referred to "black light" as nothing more than light you couldn't see - thermal radiation.
Edited on 25-05-2017 21:09
25-05-2017 21:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
I have sent a link to some people who might find this interesting. It seems that you two can only quote what is found online. A historian familiar with Max Planck's actual work might need to be asked if Max Planck calculated a frequency for black light being emitted before he calculated his constant.

James_

Max Planck wasn't that stupid.


Did you get this? All we can do is quote what is on-line. But he sent a link to someone.

He doesn't know that "black light" was nothing more than a pseudonym for thermal radiation. Radiation that you could not see.


Nope. There is no such thing as 'black light'. The bulbs marketed as 'black' light bulbs put out violet and soft UV-A light (lower frequencies of the UV-A band). These are often very low power, and won't even produce a tan (which is better obtained with higher frequency UV-A light).

Thermal energy does not radiate. Electromagnetic energy does. Electromagnetic energy is emitted by any substance containing thermal energy above absolute zero. This is known as heating by radiance. It is the only form of heating that can cross a vacuum.

His problem is a familiar one. Worshiping the Holy Link is simply not thinking. It is letting someone else think for you, and claiming their argument as one's own. Such lazy thinking leaves one unable to recognize the fallacies in the argument of another, since they are constantly grasping at other's arguments to fill in their inability to think for themselves.

I know one guy on another board that is so into this he presents nothing but Holy Links for all of his arguments. Any disagreement with his God the Holy Link results in being called a liar and a host of other names.

I despise such lazy thinking.


What do you mean thermal radiatiation does not radiate? ALL parts of the electromagnetic bands from ultra-low frequency to cosmic waves radiate. Sound is a radiation.

As I stated - Planck referred to "black light" as nothing more than light you couldn't see - thermal radiation.

Thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy.

Sound will not cross a vacuum. It is not radiation.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2017 21:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
I have sent a link to some people who might find this interesting. It seems that you two can only quote what is found online. A historian familiar with Max Planck's actual work might need to be asked if Max Planck calculated a frequency for black light being emitted before he calculated his constant.

James_

Max Planck wasn't that stupid.


Did you get this? All we can do is quote what is on-line. But he sent a link to someone.

He doesn't know that "black light" was nothing more than a pseudonym for thermal radiation. Radiation that you could not see.


Nope. There is no such thing as 'black light'. The bulbs marketed as 'black' light bulbs put out violet and soft UV-A light (lower frequencies of the UV-A band). These are often very low power, and won't even produce a tan (which is better obtained with higher frequency UV-A light).

Thermal energy does not radiate. Electromagnetic energy does. Electromagnetic energy is emitted by any substance containing thermal energy above absolute zero. This is known as heating by radiance. It is the only form of heating that can cross a vacuum.

His problem is a familiar one. Worshiping the Holy Link is simply not thinking. It is letting someone else think for you, and claiming their argument as one's own. Such lazy thinking leaves one unable to recognize the fallacies in the argument of another, since they are constantly grasping at other's arguments to fill in their inability to think for themselves.

I know one guy on another board that is so into this he presents nothing but Holy Links for all of his arguments. Any disagreement with his God the Holy Link results in being called a liar and a host of other names.

I despise such lazy thinking.


What do you mean thermal radiatiation does not radiate? ALL parts of the electromagnetic bands from ultra-low frequency to cosmic waves radiate. Sound is a radiation.

As I stated - Planck referred to "black light" as nothing more than light you couldn't see - thermal radiation.

Thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy.

Sound will not cross a vacuum. It is not radiation.


Aren't you the one that has been quoting Stefan-Boltzmann's law which has the IR frequencies as direct radiation?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

"The thermal energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by"

Since this energy will travel through a complete vacuum how are you proposing it not radiate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_low_frequency "Ultra low frequency (ULF) is the ITU designation for the frequency range of electromagnetic waves between 300 hertz and 3 kilohertz. In magnetosphere science and seismology, alternative definitions are usually given, including ranges from 1 mHz to 100 Hz, 1 mHz to 1 Hz, 10 mHz to 10 Hz."

Exactly where are you coming from? Heat doesn't radiate and sound frequencies cannot radiate?
25-05-2017 22:23
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake,
He is trying to teach everyone how to be metaphysical which is to say spiritual.

p.s., as far as the experiment goes have to believe Max Planck would've liked to have seen it.
Edited on 25-05-2017 22:49
26-05-2017 00:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
I have sent a link to some people who might find this interesting. It seems that you two can only quote what is found online. A historian familiar with Max Planck's actual work might need to be asked if Max Planck calculated a frequency for black light being emitted before he calculated his constant.

James_

Max Planck wasn't that stupid.


Did you get this? All we can do is quote what is on-line. But he sent a link to someone.

He doesn't know that "black light" was nothing more than a pseudonym for thermal radiation. Radiation that you could not see.


Nope. There is no such thing as 'black light'. The bulbs marketed as 'black' light bulbs put out violet and soft UV-A light (lower frequencies of the UV-A band). These are often very low power, and won't even produce a tan (which is better obtained with higher frequency UV-A light).

Thermal energy does not radiate. Electromagnetic energy does. Electromagnetic energy is emitted by any substance containing thermal energy above absolute zero. This is known as heating by radiance. It is the only form of heating that can cross a vacuum.

His problem is a familiar one. Worshiping the Holy Link is simply not thinking. It is letting someone else think for you, and claiming their argument as one's own. Such lazy thinking leaves one unable to recognize the fallacies in the argument of another, since they are constantly grasping at other's arguments to fill in their inability to think for themselves.

I know one guy on another board that is so into this he presents nothing but Holy Links for all of his arguments. Any disagreement with his God the Holy Link results in being called a liar and a host of other names.

I despise such lazy thinking.


What do you mean thermal radiatiation does not radiate? ALL parts of the electromagnetic bands from ultra-low frequency to cosmic waves radiate. Sound is a radiation.

As I stated - Planck referred to "black light" as nothing more than light you couldn't see - thermal radiation.

Thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy.

Sound will not cross a vacuum. It is not radiation.


Aren't you the one that has been quoting Stefan-Boltzmann's law which has the IR frequencies as direct radiation?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

The S-B law is color-blind. It does not concern itself with any frequency or frequencies.

Wake wrote:

"The thermal energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by"
Poor wording. Thermal energy is not being radiated. Electromagnetic energy is. That is what the S-B describes.
Wake wrote:
Since this energy will travel through a complete vacuum how are you proposing it not radiate?
It does travel through a vacuum. It is electromagnetic energy.
Wake wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_low_frequency "Ultra low frequency (ULF) is the ITU designation for the frequency range of electromagnetic waves between 300 hertz and 3 kilohertz. In magnetosphere science and seismology, alternative definitions are usually given, including ranges from 1 mHz to 100 Hz, 1 mHz to 1 Hz, 10 mHz to 10 Hz."
And your point...?
Wake wrote:
Exactly where are you coming from?
I came from my parents.
Wake wrote:
Heat doesn't radiate
Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
and sound frequencies cannot radiate?

They can if they are electromagnetic energy. You are now talking about audio frequencies, not sound. You are making a false equivalence.


The Parrot Killer
26-05-2017 00:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
Wake,
He is trying to teach everyone how to be metaphysical which is to say spiritual.

p.s., as far as the experiment goes have to believe Max Planck would've liked to have seen it.


Metaphysics is not spiritualism. Obviously you are illiterate on the subject.

He could see it. Any fire, coal furnace, incandescent light source, all show the same thing.


The Parrot Killer
26-05-2017 01:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy.

Sound will not cross a vacuum. It is not radiation.


Aren't you the one that has been quoting Stefan-Boltzmann's law which has the IR frequencies as direct radiation?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html[/quote]
The S-B law is color-blind. It does not concern itself with any frequency or frequencies.


They can if they are electromagnetic energy. You are now talking about audio frequencies, not sound. You are making a false equivalence.[/quote]

And you ask me what "science" you don't understand? This is again rather pointless. If you don't understand what the flux number a Stefan-Boltzmann calculation renders there simply is no talking to you.
26-05-2017 01:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Wake wrote:
And you ask me what "science" you don't understand? This is again rather pointless. If you don't understand what the flux number a Stefan-Boltzmann calculation renders there simply is no talking to you.


The 'flux number'? Are you referring to 'radiance'?

You still haven't specified what theory of science I am violating.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Black Body Radiation and Stefan-Boltzmann:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law39124-08-2019 03:02
Black body radiation2919-08-2019 09:11
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Radiation saturation510-08-2019 07:16
IPCC sucks. They have no answer for natural climatic cooling other than painting houses black to decrease019-04-2019 16:32
▲ 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