Remember me
▼ Content

BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.



Page 3 of 3<123
29-05-2020 17:55
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:id you consider yourself to be "citing a source" when you said:
gfm7175 wrote:... you can look at Planck's Law for yourself,... ?

Yes.
I don't care what book/website/magazine/etc you pull Planck's Law out of.


Thank you! I was genuinely unsure of what you meant until now. Now it's crystal clear.

As Planck was a writer and it's his law there's actually plenty of published reference material for that one.

You're still not understanding. I don't care about any "published reference material". I only care about the mathematical formalization of the theory ("Planck's Law"), as that is the authoritative reference. You have already been provided with a link to one of many locations where you can find Planck's Law.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You can find a copy of it here,
No that is not the work of Max Planck but a post on his personal page by IBdaMann, the writer of that text.

Planck's Law is located on that page. It doesn't matter who types it up; it is still Planck's Law.

Let's try out another one... E=MC^2... Are you going to deny this formalization simply because I, gfm7175, typed it? Are you going to deny it if it could be found on IBD's website? It doesn't matter whether I type it here, or IBD types it here (or puts it on his website). The authoritative reference in this instance IS, quite literally, E=MC^2.

This is how one can use (in extension) "the laws of physics" and "science" as a source. The "laws of physics" are a specific collection, of which the formalized theory E=MC^2 is a part of, and "science" as a whole is a specific collection (of theories that are falsifiable and continue to survive null hypothesis testing), of which "the laws of physics" are a part of.

tmiddles wrote:
Max Planck wrote extensively and that link lacks citation to his writing. Don't call it Planck's Law if it didn't come from Max Planck. If it did prove it.

IBD's website doesn't need to link to the various writings of Max Planck. Planck's Law itself IS the authoritative reference, no matter where it happens to be located.
Edited on 29-05-2020 18:06
29-05-2020 18:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
gfm7175 wrote: FINALLY you have me perched upon something that isn't burning my poor little footsies off.

Nope. I had to do that to give you confidence in your superpower to "take the heat." You were not aware that I was over 450 deg F in that picture.

You had to be made to realize that nobody can flame you and have any effect you don't want.

You have graduated.

.
Attached image:


Edited on 29-05-2020 18:01
29-05-2020 18:14
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: FINALLY you have me perched upon something that isn't burning my poor little footsies off.

Nope. I had to do that to give you confidence in your superpower to "take the heat." You were not aware that I was over 450 deg F in that picture.

You had to be made to realize that nobody can flame you and have any effect you don't want.

You have graduated.

.




Okay, now THAT was high quality content right there! I rate your post two wings WAY up.
31-05-2020 08:01
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: FINALLY you have me perched upon something that isn't burning my poor little footsies off.

Nope. I had to do that to give you confidence in your superpower to "take the heat." You were not aware that I was over 450 deg F in that picture.

You had to be made to realize that nobody can flame you and have any effect you don't want.

You have graduated.

.



So you're saying that a Badger can take the heat? Isn't that an oxymoron?
badger verb
badgered; badgering; badgers

Definition of badger (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb
: to harass or annoy persistently
01-06-2020 19:20
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: FINALLY you have me perched upon something that isn't burning my poor little footsies off.

Nope. I had to do that to give you confidence in your superpower to "take the heat." You were not aware that I was over 450 deg F in that picture.

You had to be made to realize that nobody can flame you and have any effect you don't want.

You have graduated.

.



So you're saying that a Badger can take the heat? Isn't that an oxymoron?

No.

And so far, you are using "Badger" as a proper noun (which would be referring to one of numerous nicknames for a resident of Wisconsin) even though I think you meant to use "badger" as a noun (which would be referring to the animal)? It's unclear to me whether your intention was to make use of the proper noun "Badger" or the noun "badger".

James___ wrote:
badger verb
badgered; badgering; badgers

Definition of badger (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb
: to harass or annoy persistently

Now, you are referring to a definition of "badger", but for its usage as a verb. A verb is not a noun (proper or otherwise).


Learn Logic.
Learn English.

My avatar is a catbird, not a badger. It IS, however, a Badger.

Edited on 01-06-2020 19:56
03-06-2020 13:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:The moment Max Planck's theory became science,
And what was that theory and why are you calling it "Max Planck's theory"? You are invoking the name of Mr. Planck yet you choose not to provide a citation. Also are you, IBD, the one who decides what "science" is? Again YOU are the one playing this game of pretending to speak for others at the moment so clarify yourself.

IBdaMann wrote:It's the same no matter the source.
gfm7175 wrote:I don't care about any "published reference material". I only care about the mathematical formalization of the theory
So wikipedia is a fine source for it then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
03-06-2020 17:06
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The moment Max Planck's theory became science,
And what was that theory

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
and why are you calling it "Max Planck's theory"?

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
You are invoking the name of Mr. Planck yet you choose not to provide a citation.

No need for one. The theory stands on its own. The theory itself is the authoritative source. This has already been explained to you.

tmiddles wrote:
Also are you, IBD, the one who decides what "science" is?

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
Again YOU are the one playing this game of pretending to speak for others at the moment so clarify yourself.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one who is regularly doing this.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:It's the same no matter the source.
gfm7175 wrote:I don't care about any "published reference material". I only care about the mathematical formalization of the theory
So wikipedia is a fine source for it then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

IF the model is correctly expressed on Wikipedia, then yes (but only for the model itself).
03-06-2020 21:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The moment Max Planck's theory became science,
And what was that theory and why are you calling it "Max Planck's theory"?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
You are invoking the name of Mr. Planck yet you choose not to provide a citation.

None needed. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Also are you, IBD, the one who decides what "science" is?

He isn't. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Again YOU are the one playing this game of pretending to speak for others at the moment so clarify yourself.

He isn't. Contextomy fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
So wikipedia is a fine source for it then?

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
03-06-2020 23:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tmiddles wrote: ... and why are you calling it "Max Planck's theory"?

This is a stupid question ... but I'll play along.

* It's needs a name/label to which it can be forwith referred.
* I suggested "COVID-19" but that was already taken by a virus of all things.
* The people who own science opted instead to apply a label that extends credit to the person responsible for the law's creation, i.e. Max Planck
* At the last moment I tried to reason with them. "Call it 'Stefan-Boltzmann'" I yelled, but they decided to apply *that* name to an entirely different model.

tmiddles wrote: Also are you, IBD, the one who decides what "science" is?

Much of this discussion would be so much easier if you were to imagine that I am. But I'm not. That's gfm7175's responsibility. This week he's declaring science to be all falsifiable models that predict nature. If you have any problems with his definition you need to take it up with him.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
04-06-2020 10:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
IBdaMann wrote:...they decided to apply *that* name to an entirely different model.
Yeah? How did you find out? Who are "they"? How did you learn Planck's Law? Man on the street again?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So wikipedia is a fine source for it then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

IF the model is correctly expressed on Wikipedia, then yes (but only for the model itself).
How do you know if they got it correctly expressed?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 04-06-2020 10:20
04-06-2020 17:18
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...they decided to apply *that* name to an entirely different model.
Yeah? How did you find out? Who are "they"? How did you learn Planck's Law? Man on the street again?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So wikipedia is a fine source for it then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

IF the model is correctly expressed on Wikipedia, then yes (but only for the model itself).
How do you know if they got it correctly expressed?

So you've forgotten how to learn again?? That's too bad, because you were actually making some progress in the "Venus is hotter than Mercury" thread...

If you wish to pull Planck's Law (the model itself, formalized via mathematics) from Wikipedia, then go right on ahead. It's the same law no matter where it happens to be located. I just find IBD's website's expression of that law to be much easier to digest.
Edited on 04-06-2020 17:34
04-06-2020 21:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...they decided to apply *that* name to an entirely different model.
Yeah? How did you find out? Who are "they"? How did you learn Planck's Law? Man on the street again?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So wikipedia is a fine source for it then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

IF the model is correctly expressed on Wikipedia, then yes (but only for the model itself).
How do you know if they got it correctly expressed?

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-06-2020 21:12
04-06-2020 22:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:...IF the model is correctly expressed....
How do you know if they got it correctly expressed?
...It's the same law no matter where it happens to be located....

So you're backing away the notion that you should check to see that a law has been presented accurately?

Just to recap what we all know is going on here:
You GFM, ITN, IBD and your brood are all intent on NEVER admitting that it's sensible to employ a textbook or reference of any kind. Why? Because an elementary text on thermodynamics or science in general will instantly contradict much of what you say.

Ever heard "Trust, but verify"? You don't think it's a good policy? How would one go about the "verify" bit?
04-06-2020 23:33
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:...IF the model is correctly expressed....
How do you know if they got it correctly expressed?
...It's the same law no matter where it happens to be located....

So you're backing away the notion that you should check to see that a law has been presented accurately?

Nope.

tmiddles wrote:
Just to recap what we all know is going on here:

You can't speak for others. You can only speak for yourself.

tmiddles wrote:
You GFM, ITN, IBD and your brood

What "brood"? ITN's avatar is not of himself. He, rather, is the "killer" of his avatar. He kills parrots (such as yourself) for fun, you see. IBD's avatar is not of a bird. My avatar IS a bird, and my catbird avatar IS a representation of myself (and my worldview).

tmiddles wrote:
are all intent on NEVER admitting that it's sensible to employ a textbook or reference of any kind.

I literally JUST told you that you can indeed pull out Planck's Law from whatever textbook or reference that you wish to pull it out from. I don't care where you get it from, so long as what you are referring to is indeed Planck's Law.

tmiddles wrote:
Why? Because an elementary text on thermodynamics or science in general will instantly contradict much of what you say.

Science is not a textbook, dude. It is the theories themselves.

tmiddles wrote:
Ever heard "Trust, but verify"? You don't think it's a good policy? How would one go about the "verify" bit?

I'm surprised I've lasted THIS long......

RQAA.

Ahhhhhhhh, MUCH better...
05-06-2020 03:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:...IF the model is correctly expressed....
How do you know if they got it correctly expressed?
...It's the same law no matter where it happens to be located....

So you're backing away the notion that you should check to see that a law has been presented accurately?

So you think that E != hf??
tmiddles wrote:
Just to recap what we all know is going on here:
You GFM, ITN, IBD and your brood are all intent on NEVER admitting that it's sensible to employ a textbook or reference of any kind. Why? Because an elementary text on thermodynamics or science in general will instantly contradict much of what you say.

You don't get to quote every textbook or any elementary textbook as authoritative of Planck's law.
tmiddles wrote:
Ever heard "Trust, but verify"? You don't think it's a good policy? How would one go about the "verify" bit?

Simple. Find a case where E != hf that is demonstrable as a repeatable test. If you can do that, the law is falsified. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-06-2020 03:18
05-06-2020 14:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3260)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...backing away the notion that you should check to see that a law has been presented accurately?
Nope.
So how do you check that Planck's Radiation Law is presented correctly? YOU, not me (I will use a text book yes).

Into the Night wrote:
So you think that E != hf??
Just going to duck the question again? How would you check ITN? If you looked at a formula and thought, hey, I think they made an error transcribing that. What would you do?

Into the Night wrote:...any elementary textbook as authoritative of Planck's law.
OK so what then?

I'm asking what you actually do, not what I could do.
05-06-2020 18:06
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...backing away the notion that you should check to see that a law has been presented accurately?
Nope.
So how do you check that Planck's Radiation Law is presented correctly? YOU, not me (I will use a text book yes).

Into the Night wrote:
So you think that E != hf??
Just going to duck the question again? How would you check ITN? If you looked at a formula and thought, hey, I think they made an error transcribing that. What would you do?

Into the Night wrote:...any elementary textbook as authoritative of Planck's law.
OK so what then?

I'm asking what you actually do, not what I could do.

RQAA.
05-06-2020 19:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...backing away the notion that you should check to see that a law has been presented accurately?
Nope.
So how do you check that Planck's Radiation Law is presented correctly? YOU, not me (I will use a text book yes).

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So you think that E != hf??
Just going to duck the question again? How would you check ITN?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
If you looked at a formula and thought, hey, I think they made an error transcribing that. What would you do?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...any elementary textbook as authoritative of Planck's law.
OK so what then?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm asking what you actually do, not what I could do.

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Not such good news3201-07-2020 21:37
Fox news228-06-2020 08:51
good news and speculation1219-06-2020 07:38
1st law, 2nd law, stefan boltzman, plank1711-06-2020 16:22
Bad news...021-04-2020 20:42
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact