Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the unholy beard of the fallen ones. You think that the IGL applies to real-world gases? Go back to school.

It looks like our bulveristic mental midget is acting up again.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"bulveristic, adj. Anybody who IB doesn't like."

Whoa, in the Dictionary of IB! Wow! You sure proved me wrong.

Go ask Alice.

Who's that?

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Why is it no one will take me up on my wager that you won't be differentiating between "applicability" and "accuracy under certain conditions"?

IB, we're discussing laws. Laws.. If the law isn't entirely accurate (or any inaccuracy can be explained by error, breezes, other forces that also need to be taken into account), then the law is either wrong, or it's a useful part of a larger set of laws.

Take, for instance, the Newtonian law of gravity. The expected acceleration is only found within a vacuum, and near a gravity well or near the speed of light, it is inaccurate.

Newton's law of gravity doesn't describe acceleration. Neither does it use it.

Sorry, Newtonian gravity + Newtonian mechanics. F=ma, etc.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann: Explain in terms of domains why hot hydrogen gas emits strongly at 656.3 nm, or admit you're taking crap and shut up.

What values do you get when you run it through Planck's?

Post your work here and I'll tell you where you have errors, if any.

It is you, not I, who is claiming that Planck's law (and domains) determines the emission of radiation from gases. So it is you who needs to show how Planck's law (and domains) predicts the experimentally observed emission at 656.3 nm. Obviously you can't, because you're talking complete bollocks: Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases.

I've already shown how the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom predicts this emission using basic quantum mechanics.

Planck's law applies to gases too. You have yet to produce a gas it doesn't apply to.

Planck's Law doesn't apply to any gas. It doesn't apply to hydrogen, for example. It can't, because Planck's Law gives emission per unit of surface area, and gases don't have surfaces. This has already been explained to you.

Since you claim gases have no surface, there is nothing to emit infrared by CO2 then either.

Planck's law applies to all gases.

Gases emit radiation, but not in accordance with Planck's Law. I've already shown how to calculate the observed emission wavelengths of hydrogen using basic quantum theory. You cannot calculate these from Planck's Law. If you disagree, then please demonstrate how you would go about doing so.

Pick a frequency, calculate the energy from it. Was that so hard?

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Did you look up the definition of spectral radiance?

Did you find one example of some gas, any gas, whose measured E at temperature T and wavelength W differs from what Planck's specifies? I didn't see any example in your last post so I figure you're going to be posting it soon, yes?

After all, you insist that no gas radiates per Planck's. You insist. I figure you must have examples for every gas, no?


.

Let's take Hydrogen.



I don't know what temperature this was at, though. But since this is Planck's Law, one of the peaks is probably the Wien peak, right? The 656.28 nm is the largest, that might be it.

I go and I plug it into Wien's Law and get a temperature of 4418.8K. Okay. That's pretty hot, but not impossible to reach in a lab. That's feasible.

Now, I'm going to plug 656.28 nm into Planck's Law for the superhot gas. (It's probably not a plasma, it's not hot enough.) Since the emissivity is very near to 0 at this T and P (10 tm and 8400K H2, for reference, have 0.014 emissivity, and as you heat/compress H2 it gets less emissive.) We get about 6.90*10^6 or 6900000 intensity. The scale doesn't matter, they didn't give anything but the relative values anyway, so let's divide by 10^6 to have nicer numbers, and call the unit Intensities. Very original, I know. 6.90 Intensities for 656.28 nm.

Now let's plug in 500 nm. We get about 5.58*10^6 or 5.58 Intensities. Since we don't even know the scale of the graph (is the bottom 0, or what?), this is okayish? It seems kind of wrong that the two numbers are so close. The peak is supposed to be huge! See the graph?

Now let's plug in 486.13 nm. There's a peak here. The number we get should be more than 500 nm, right?

Nope. 5.30 Intensities.

How do you explain that, IB and Into? Is it more complex than you said, or are you wrong?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the unholy beard of the fallen ones. You think that the IGL applies to real-world gases? Go back to school.

It looks like our bulveristic mental midget is acting up again.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"bulveristic, adj. Anybody who IB doesn't like."

Whoa, in the Dictionary of IB! Wow! You sure proved me wrong.

Go ask Alice.

Who's that?

Oh, I forgot. You don't read much.

Bulverism is discarding an argument because of where it came from (or who it came from) rather than the merits of the argument itself. It combines the circular fallacy of discarding an argument without cause (the argument of the Stone), with the genetic fallacy of blaming the one making the argument (the irrelevancy of origin).

The term was first coined by C.S. Lewis in the book Through the Looking Glass.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Why is it no one will take me up on my wager that you won't be differentiating between "applicability" and "accuracy under certain conditions"?

IB, we're discussing laws. Laws.. If the law isn't entirely accurate (or any inaccuracy can be explained by error, breezes, other forces that also need to be taken into account), then the law is either wrong, or it's a useful part of a larger set of laws.

Take, for instance, the Newtonian law of gravity. The expected acceleration is only found within a vacuum, and near a gravity well or near the speed of light, it is inaccurate.

Newton's law of gravity doesn't describe acceleration. Neither does it use it.

Sorry, Newtonian gravity + Newtonian mechanics. F=ma, etc.

Newton's gravity law is superfluous in your example.

You actually seem to have meant his laws of motion.

The interesting thing about F=mA is that friction and drag are just opposing forces. Hence, the equation always applies, even in air. water, stuffing head through ground, etc.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann: Explain in terms of domains why hot hydrogen gas emits strongly at 656.3 nm, or admit you're taking crap and shut up.

What values do you get when you run it through Planck's?

Post your work here and I'll tell you where you have errors, if any.

It is you, not I, who is claiming that Planck's law (and domains) determines the emission of radiation from gases. So it is you who needs to show how Planck's law (and domains) predicts the experimentally observed emission at 656.3 nm. Obviously you can't, because you're talking complete bollocks: Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases.

I've already shown how the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom predicts this emission using basic quantum mechanics.

Planck's law applies to gases too. You have yet to produce a gas it doesn't apply to.

Planck's Law doesn't apply to any gas. It doesn't apply to hydrogen, for example. It can't, because Planck's Law gives emission per unit of surface area, and gases don't have surfaces. This has already been explained to you.

Since you claim gases have no surface, there is nothing to emit infrared by CO2 then either.

Planck's law applies to all gases.

Gases emit radiation, but not in accordance with Planck's Law. I've already shown how to calculate the observed emission wavelengths of hydrogen using basic quantum theory. You cannot calculate these from Planck's Law. If you disagree, then please demonstrate how you would go about doing so.

Pick a frequency, calculate the energy from it. Was that so hard?

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Did you look up the definition of spectral radiance?

Did you find one example of some gas, any gas, whose measured E at temperature T and wavelength W differs from what Planck's specifies? I didn't see any example in your last post so I figure you're going to be posting it soon, yes?

After all, you insist that no gas radiates per Planck's. You insist. I figure you must have examples for every gas, no?


.

Let's take Hydrogen.



I don't know what temperature this was at, though. But since this is Planck's Law, one of the peaks is probably the Wien peak, right? The 656.28 nm is the largest, that might be it.

I go and I plug it into Wien's Law and get a temperature of 4418.8K. Okay. That's pretty hot, but not impossible to reach in a lab. That's feasible.

Now, I'm going to plug 656.28 nm into Planck's Law for the superhot gas. (It's probably not a plasma, it's not hot enough.) Since the emissivity is very near to 0 at this T and P (10 tm and 8400K H2, for reference, have 0.014 emissivity, and as you heat/compress H2 it gets less emissive.) We get about 6.90*10^6 or 6900000 intensity. The scale doesn't matter, they didn't give anything but the relative values anyway, so let's divide by 10^6 to have nicer numbers, and call the unit Intensities. Very original, I know. 6.90 Intensities for 656.28 nm.

Now let's plug in 500 nm. We get about 5.58*10^6 or 5.58 Intensities. Since we don't even know the scale of the graph (is the bottom 0, or what?), this is okayish? It seems kind of wrong that the two numbers are so close. The peak is supposed to be huge! See the graph?

Now let's plug in 486.13 nm. There's a peak here. The number we get should be more than 500 nm, right?

Nope. 5.30 Intensities.

How do you explain that, IB and Into? Is it more complex than you said, or are you wrong?

Combine domains.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the unholy beard of the fallen ones. You think that the IGL applies to real-world gases? Go back to school.

It looks like our bulveristic mental midget is acting up again.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"bulveristic, adj. Anybody who IB doesn't like."

Whoa, in the Dictionary of IB! Wow! You sure proved me wrong.

Go ask Alice.

Who's that?

Oh, I forgot. You don't read much.

Bulverism is discarding an argument because of where it came from (or who it came from) rather than the merits of the argument itself. It combines the circular fallacy of discarding an argument without cause (the argument of the Stone), with the genetic fallacy of blaming the one making the argument (the irrelevancy of origin).

The term was first coined by C.S. Lewis in the book Through the Looking Glass.

See, this is the part I don't like. Your points are fine, but you didn't have to take one specific example of a book that I had not read and make the general statement of "you don't read much." I read a ton. I can chew through many books in a week (although with my many advanced classes, I don't have as much time as I used to), and not at the cost of understanding, either.

...wait...

"Through the Looking Glass"? Without searching, I know that was written by Lewis Carroll, not C.S. Lewis! However, the names are similar, and that C.S. Lewis also wrote about Bulverism (which I know from my research), so I won't generalize into the statement "you don't read much, but you try to sound sophisticated."

Anyway, bulverism seems to be of the form "you only say X because you are Y." If you say that J is stupid, and then explain that "you say X because you are stupid," that would be bulverism, is it not?

If not bulverism, then it is at least a genetic fallacy - counter my points, not the individual who makes them.

jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]Newton's gravity law is superfluous in your example.

No, it's not; I am describing the use of Newtonian gravity and Newtonian mechanics combined.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You actually seem to have meant his laws of motion.

I just corrected myself by adding Newtonian mechanics. In case you didn't know, Newtonian mechanics relies on the Newtonian Laws of Motion, so they're functionally equivalent for describing the laws that are to be used.

jwoodward48 wrote:

The interesting thing about F=mA is that friction and drag are just opposing forces. Hence, the equation always applies, even in air. water, stuffing head through ground, etc.

Yes, F=ma always applies. If we don't know that air friction, etc., exists, then we can get incorrect results out of the models.

jwoodward48 wrote:
My point is that Newtonian gravity only applies if c=inf and there are no gravity wells. (My point about vacuums is flawed, and not essential to my argument, so I am abandoning it, and rightfully so.) Newton's Law of Gravity doesn't apply to all the data that we now have - and thus we no longer consider it to be a Law precisely, but rather a good approximation of the true Law under day-to-day circumstances.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann: Explain in terms of domains why hot hydrogen gas emits strongly at 656.3 nm, or admit you're taking crap and shut up.

What values do you get when you run it through Planck's?

Post your work here and I'll tell you where you have errors, if any.

It is you, not I, who is claiming that Planck's law (and domains) determines the emission of radiation from gases. So it is you who needs to show how Planck's law (and domains) predicts the experimentally observed emission at 656.3 nm. Obviously you can't, because you're talking complete bollocks: Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases.

I've already shown how the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom predicts this emission using basic quantum mechanics.

Planck's law applies to gases too. You have yet to produce a gas it doesn't apply to.

Planck's Law doesn't apply to any gas. It doesn't apply to hydrogen, for example. It can't, because Planck's Law gives emission per unit of surface area, and gases don't have surfaces. This has already been explained to you.

Since you claim gases have no surface, there is nothing to emit infrared by CO2 then either.

Planck's law applies to all gases.

Gases emit radiation, but not in accordance with Planck's Law. I've already shown how to calculate the observed emission wavelengths of hydrogen using basic quantum theory. You cannot calculate these from Planck's Law. If you disagree, then please demonstrate how you would go about doing so.

Pick a frequency, calculate the energy from it. Was that so hard?

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Did you look up the definition of spectral radiance?

Did you find one example of some gas, any gas, whose measured E at temperature T and wavelength W differs from what Planck's specifies? I didn't see any example in your last post so I figure you're going to be posting it soon, yes?

After all, you insist that no gas radiates per Planck's. You insist. I figure you must have examples for every gas, no?


.

Let's take Hydrogen.



I don't know what temperature this was at, though. But since this is Planck's Law, one of the peaks is probably the Wien peak, right? The 656.28 nm is the largest, that might be it.

I go and I plug it into Wien's Law and get a temperature of 4418.8K. Okay. That's pretty hot, but not impossible to reach in a lab. That's feasible.

Now, I'm going to plug 656.28 nm into Planck's Law for the superhot gas. (It's probably not a plasma, it's not hot enough.) Since the emissivity is very near to 0 at this T and P (10 tm and 8400K H2, for reference, have 0.014 emissivity, and as you heat/compress H2 it gets less emissive.) We get about 6.90*10^6 or 6900000 intensity. The scale doesn't matter, they didn't give anything but the relative values anyway, so let's divide by 10^6 to have nicer numbers, and call the unit Intensities. Very original, I know. 6.90 Intensities for 656.28 nm.

Now let's plug in 500 nm. We get about 5.58*10^6 or 5.58 Intensities. Since we don't even know the scale of the graph (is the bottom 0, or what?), this is okayish? It seems kind of wrong that the two numbers are so close. The peak is supposed to be huge! See the graph?

Now let's plug in 486.13 nm. There's a peak here. The number we get should be more than 500 nm, right?

Nope. 5.30 Intensities.

How do you explain that, IB and Into? Is it more complex than you said, or are you wrong?

Combine domains.

Okay. How would I do that? Could you give a brief outline, or even the first step? I'm lost here.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, by the unholy beard of the fallen ones. You think that the IGL applies to real-world gases? Go back to school.

It looks like our bulveristic mental midget is acting up again.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"bulveristic, adj. Anybody who IB doesn't like."

Whoa, in the Dictionary of IB! Wow! You sure proved me wrong.

Go ask Alice.

Who's that?

Oh, I forgot. You don't read much.

Bulverism is discarding an argument because of where it came from (or who it came from) rather than the merits of the argument itself. It combines the circular fallacy of discarding an argument without cause (the argument of the Stone), with the genetic fallacy of blaming the one making the argument (the irrelevancy of origin).

The term was first coined by C.S. Lewis in the book Through the Looking Glass.

See, this is the part I don't like. Your points are fine, but you didn't have to take one specific example of a book that I had not read and make the general statement of "you don't read much." I read a ton. I can chew through many books in a week (although with my many advanced classes, I don't have as much time as I used to), and not at the cost of understanding, either.

...wait...

"Through the Looking Glass"? Without searching, I know that was written by Lewis Carroll, not C.S. Lewis! However, the names are similar, and that C.S. Lewis also wrote about Bulverism (which I know from my research), so I won't generalize into the statement "you don't read much, but you try to sound sophisticated."

Anyway, bulverism seems to be of the form "you only say X because you are Y." If you say that J is stupid, and then explain that "you say X because you are stupid," that would be bulverism, is it not?

If not bulverism, then it is at least a genetic fallacy - counter my points, not the individual who makes them.

Demonstrated. You don't read much. I gave you the explanation of Bulverism.
You've never read up on a lot of mathematics either, nor logic, nor history, nor economic theory, nor governmental structure, nor...

jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]Newton's gravity law is superfluous in your example.

No, it's not; I am describing the use of Newtonian gravity and Newtonian mechanics combined.

Yes, it is. Gravity is not the only force.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You actually seem to have meant his laws of motion.

I just corrected myself by adding Newtonian mechanics. In case you didn't know, Newtonian mechanics relies on the Newtonian Laws of Motion, so they're functionally equivalent for describing the laws that are to be used.

No, they are completely different theories and equations, for different things. They have nothing to do with each other at all, other than gravity is one kind of force.

jwoodward48 wrote:

The interesting thing about F=mA is that friction and drag are just opposing forces. Hence, the equation always applies, even in air. water, stuffing head through ground, etc.

Yes, F=ma always applies. If we don't know that air friction, etc., exists, then we can get incorrect results out of the models.

That's because you aren't accounting for the forces involved. The equation is being used improperly.

jwoodward48 wrote:
My point is that Newtonian gravity only applies if c=inf and there are no gravity wells. (My point about vacuums is flawed, and not essential to my argument, so I am abandoning it, and rightfully so.) Newton's Law of Gravity doesn't apply to all the data that we now have - and thus we no longer consider it to be a Law precisely, but rather a good approximation of the true Law under day-to-day circumstances.

No. It is precise. It is accurate in all cases. It is not an approximation. It does not use 'ideal' conditions.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann: Explain in terms of domains why hot hydrogen gas emits strongly at 656.3 nm, or admit you're taking crap and shut up.

What values do you get when you run it through Planck's?

Post your work here and I'll tell you where you have errors, if any.

It is you, not I, who is claiming that Planck's law (and domains) determines the emission of radiation from gases. So it is you who needs to show how Planck's law (and domains) predicts the experimentally observed emission at 656.3 nm. Obviously you can't, because you're talking complete bollocks: Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases.

I've already shown how the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom predicts this emission using basic quantum mechanics.

Planck's law applies to gases too. You have yet to produce a gas it doesn't apply to.

Planck's Law doesn't apply to any gas. It doesn't apply to hydrogen, for example. It can't, because Planck's Law gives emission per unit of surface area, and gases don't have surfaces. This has already been explained to you.

Since you claim gases have no surface, there is nothing to emit infrared by CO2 then either.

Planck's law applies to all gases.

Gases emit radiation, but not in accordance with Planck's Law. I've already shown how to calculate the observed emission wavelengths of hydrogen using basic quantum theory. You cannot calculate these from Planck's Law. If you disagree, then please demonstrate how you would go about doing so.

Pick a frequency, calculate the energy from it. Was that so hard?

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Did you look up the definition of spectral radiance?

Did you find one example of some gas, any gas, whose measured E at temperature T and wavelength W differs from what Planck's specifies? I didn't see any example in your last post so I figure you're going to be posting it soon, yes?

After all, you insist that no gas radiates per Planck's. You insist. I figure you must have examples for every gas, no?


.

Let's take Hydrogen.



I don't know what temperature this was at, though. But since this is Planck's Law, one of the peaks is probably the Wien peak, right? The 656.28 nm is the largest, that might be it.

I go and I plug it into Wien's Law and get a temperature of 4418.8K. Okay. That's pretty hot, but not impossible to reach in a lab. That's feasible.

Now, I'm going to plug 656.28 nm into Planck's Law for the superhot gas. (It's probably not a plasma, it's not hot enough.) Since the emissivity is very near to 0 at this T and P (10 tm and 8400K H2, for reference, have 0.014 emissivity, and as you heat/compress H2 it gets less emissive.) We get about 6.90*10^6 or 6900000 intensity. The scale doesn't matter, they didn't give anything but the relative values anyway, so let's divide by 10^6 to have nicer numbers, and call the unit Intensities. Very original, I know. 6.90 Intensities for 656.28 nm.

Now let's plug in 500 nm. We get about 5.58*10^6 or 5.58 Intensities. Since we don't even know the scale of the graph (is the bottom 0, or what?), this is okayish? It seems kind of wrong that the two numbers are so close. The peak is supposed to be huge! See the graph?

Now let's plug in 486.13 nm. There's a peak here. The number we get should be more than 500 nm, right?

Nope. 5.30 Intensities.

How do you explain that, IB and Into? Is it more complex than you said, or are you wrong?

Combine domains.

Okay. How would I do that? Could you give a brief outline, or even the first step? I'm lost here.

Pick a frequency. Run it through the equation.

jwoodward48 wrote:Which equation? I've already done Planck's (with wavelength, but that doesn't matter).

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Demonstrated. You don't read much. I gave you the explanation of Bulverism.
You've never read up on a lot of mathematics either, nor logic, nor history, nor economic theory, nor governmental structure, nor...

Why do I even try...? You are giving me a demonstration of Bulverism, yes. When you say "you are an illiterate idiot who has never learned anything," that is presumably being used to support your position. That is a fallacious argument.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]Newton's gravity law is superfluous in your example.

No, it's not; I am describing the use of Newtonian gravity and Newtonian mechanics combined.

Yes, it is. Gravity is not the only force.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You actually seem to have meant his laws of motion.

I just corrected myself by adding Newtonian mechanics. In case you didn't know, Newtonian mechanics relies on the Newtonian Laws of Motion, so they're functionally equivalent for describing the laws that are to be used.

No, they are completely different theories and equations, for different things. They have nothing to do with each other at all, other than gravity is one kind of force.

I believe that you are confused as to whether I wrote Newtonian mechanics or Newtonian gravity. The two are distinct. Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian Laws of Motion are either the same or very closely related.

jwoodward48 wrote:

The interesting thing about F=mA is that friction and drag are just opposing forces. Hence, the equation always applies, even in air. water, stuffing head through ground, etc.

Yes, F=ma always applies. If we don't know that air friction, etc., exists, then we can get incorrect results out of the models.

That's because you aren't accounting for the forces involved. The equation is being used improperly.

Indeed, that specific point was unclear and flawed, and as such I am admitting your correctness in this specific case and moving on.

jwoodward48 wrote:
My point is that Newtonian gravity only applies if c=inf and there are no gravity wells. (My point about vacuums is flawed, and not essential to my argument, so I am abandoning it, and rightfully so.) Newton's Law of Gravity doesn't apply to all the data that we now have - and thus we no longer consider it to be a Law precisely, but rather a good approximation of the true Law under day-to-day circumstances.

No. It is precise. It is accurate in all cases. It is not an approximation. It does not use 'ideal' conditions.

Into, are you aware of the recent discovery of General Relativity? It turns out that Newtonian gravity cannot sufficiently explain the orbit of Mercury, but Einstein's marvelous and relatively (ha) complex Laws can. Thus, General Relativity takes its place as the accepted scientific Law of Gravity, and Newtonian Gravity has been pushed to the side, suitable only for children and situations in which small error is acceptable, speed is significantly less than c, and the strength of gravity does not significantly change.

jwoodward48 wrote:
There must be a temperature T of the sample, right? This temperature corresponds to one and only one Wien peak. No matter which T I choose, it cannot explain both peaks.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
There must be a temperature T of the sample, right? This temperature corresponds to one and only one Wien peak. No matter which T I choose, it cannot explain both peaks.

None of that is a condition in Planck's. Do you not know what the equation is?

Into the Night wrote:
Are you aware that Newton's laws have NOT been replaced? All general relativity did was allow for an extra factor in the equation (which is normally insignificant).

Surface Detail wrote:Were you asleep during calculus classes? The fact that the derivative of the equation describing Planck's Law has only one turning point tells you that the equation has only one peak.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Demonstrated. You don't read much. I gave you the explanation of Bulverism.
You've never read up on a lot of mathematics either, nor logic, nor history, nor economic theory, nor governmental structure, nor...

Why do I even try...? You are giving me a demonstration of Bulverism, yes. When you say "you are an illiterate idiot who has never learned anything," that is presumably being used to support your position. That is a fallacious argument.

You do not understand what Bulverism is. You have demonstrated that you ARE an illiterate idiot who has never learned anything.

jwoodward48 wrote:

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]Newton's gravity law is superfluous in your example.

No, it's not; I am describing the use of Newtonian gravity and Newtonian mechanics combined.

Yes, it is. Gravity is not the only force.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You actually seem to have meant his laws of motion.

I just corrected myself by adding Newtonian mechanics. In case you didn't know, Newtonian mechanics relies on the Newtonian Laws of Motion, so they're functionally equivalent for describing the laws that are to be used.

No, they are completely different theories and equations, for different things. They have nothing to do with each other at all, other than gravity is one kind of force.

I believe that you are confused as to whether I wrote Newtonian mechanics or Newtonian gravity. The two are distinct. Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian Laws of Motion are either the same or very closely related.

jwoodward48 wrote:

The interesting thing about F=mA is that friction and drag are just opposing forces. Hence, the equation always applies, even in air. water, stuffing head through ground, etc.

Yes, F=ma always applies. If we don't know that air friction, etc., exists, then we can get incorrect results out of the models.

That's because you aren't accounting for the forces involved. The equation is being used improperly.

Indeed, that specific point was unclear and flawed, and as such I am admitting your correctness in this specific case and moving on.

jwoodward48 wrote:
My point is that Newtonian gravity only applies if c=inf and there are no gravity wells. (My point about vacuums is flawed, and not essential to my argument, so I am abandoning it, and rightfully so.) Newton's Law of Gravity doesn't apply to all the data that we now have - and thus we no longer consider it to be a Law precisely, but rather a good approximation of the true Law under day-to-day circumstances.

No. It is precise. It is accurate in all cases. It is not an approximation. It does not use 'ideal' conditions.

Into, are you aware of the recent discovery of General Relativity? It turns out that Newtonian gravity cannot sufficiently explain the orbit of Mercury, but Einstein's marvelous and relatively (ha) complex Laws can. Thus, General Relativity takes its place as the accepted scientific Law of Gravity, and Newtonian Gravity has been pushed to the side, suitable only for children and situations in which small error is acceptable, speed is significantly less than c, and the strength of gravity does not significantly change.

Are you aware that Newton's laws have NOT been replaced? All general relativity did was allow for an extra factor in the equation (which is normally insignificant).

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Were you asleep during calculus classes? The fact that the derivative of the equation describing Planck's Law has only one turning point tells you that the equation has only one peak.

You still haven't learned what a domain is. Why are involving yourself in this discussion?

Go learn to read an equation. That might involve learning multiplication, divison, exponents and such.

.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
There must be a temperature T of the sample, right? This temperature corresponds to one and only one Wien peak. No matter which T I choose, it cannot explain both peaks.

None of that is a condition in Planck's. Do you not know what the equation is?


.

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
There must be a temperature T of the sample, right? This temperature corresponds to one and only one Wien peak. No matter which T I choose, it cannot explain both peaks.

None of that is a condition in Planck's. Do you not know what the equation is?


.

I've given it before. Yes, I do know what the equation is. A direct result of Planck's is Wien's.

jwoodward48 wrote: I've given it before. Yes, I do know what the equation is. A direct result of Planck's is Wien's.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Demonstrated. You don't read much. I gave you the explanation of Bulverism.
You've never read up on a lot of mathematics either, nor logic, nor history, nor economic theory, nor governmental structure, nor...

Why do I even try...? You are giving me a demonstration of Bulverism, yes. When you say "you are an illiterate idiot who has never learned anything," that is presumably being used to support your position. That is a fallacious argument.

You do not understand what Bulverism is. You have demonstrated that you ARE an illiterate idiot who has never learned anything.

Correct! That is Bulverism! Good job.

I might be wrong. I don't know. I do know one thing: if someone abuses me, I don't really listen to what they say. I'd recommend stopping the abuse if you want an appreciative audience.

Now, I can guess that you'll deny abusing me. You'll call me a crybaby and many other things. But let me just pull out a dictionary:

Emotional abuse: "any act including confinement, isolation, verbal assault, humiliation, intimidation, infantilization, or any other treatment which may diminish the sense of identity, dignity, and self-worth." Hmm, do you figure that calling me an illiterate idiot is humiliating ("causing someone to feel ashamed and foolish by injuring their dignity and self-respect"), intimidating ("frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants"), or infantilizing ("To treat or condescend to as if still a young child")?

Yep.

jwoodward48 wrote:

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]Newton's gravity law is superfluous in your example.

No, it's not; I am describing the use of Newtonian gravity and Newtonian mechanics combined.

Yes, it is. Gravity is not the only force.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You actually seem to have meant his laws of motion.

I just corrected myself by adding Newtonian mechanics. In case you didn't know, Newtonian mechanics relies on the Newtonian Laws of Motion, so they're functionally equivalent for describing the laws that are to be used.

No, they are completely different theories and equations, for different things. They have nothing to do with each other at all, other than gravity is one kind of force.

I believe that you are confused as to whether I wrote Newtonian mechanics or Newtonian gravity. The two are distinct. Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian Laws of Motion are either the same or very closely related.

jwoodward48 wrote:

The interesting thing about F=mA is that friction and drag are just opposing forces. Hence, the equation always applies, even in air. water, stuffing head through ground, etc.

Yes, F=ma always applies. If we don't know that air friction, etc., exists, then we can get incorrect results out of the models.

That's because you aren't accounting for the forces involved. The equation is being used improperly.

Indeed, that specific point was unclear and flawed, and as such I am admitting your correctness in this specific case and moving on.

jwoodward48 wrote:
My point is that Newtonian gravity only applies if c=inf and there are no gravity wells. (My point about vacuums is flawed, and not essential to my argument, so I am abandoning it, and rightfully so.) Newton's Law of Gravity doesn't apply to all the data that we now have - and thus we no longer consider it to be a Law precisely, but rather a good approximation of the true Law under day-to-day circumstances.

No. It is precise. It is accurate in all cases. It is not an approximation. It does not use 'ideal' conditions.

Into, are you aware of the recent discovery of General Relativity? It turns out that Newtonian gravity cannot sufficiently explain the orbit of Mercury, but Einstein's marvelous and relatively (ha) complex Laws can. Thus, General Relativity takes its place as the accepted scientific Law of Gravity, and Newtonian Gravity has been pushed to the side, suitable only for children and situations in which small error is acceptable, speed is significantly less than c, and the strength of gravity does not significantly change.

Are you aware that Newton's laws have NOT been replaced? All general relativity did was allow for an extra factor in the equation (which is normally insignificant).

Yes, they have been replaced by a more general and correct law. The law which says that F=GmM/r is no longer considered to be correct.

Into the Night wrote:
Newton's laws, including his law of gravitation, are still considered correct and are used to this day.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: I've given it before. Yes, I do know what the equation is. A direct result of Planck's is Wien's.

I'm looking at the formula and I don't see any requirements on the domain. Are you looking at it? No requirements at all. So these guys below are going to have several spikes (peaks). Count them, and then learn what a domain is and why it's important.




.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Newton's laws, including his law of gravitation, are still considered correct and are used to this day.

Newtonian gravity errs. It failed to predict Mercury's orbital quirks, while Relativity does.

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: I've given it before. Yes, I do know what the equation is. A direct result of Planck's is Wien's.

I'm looking at the formula and I don't see any requirements on the domain. Are you looking at it? No requirements at all. So these guys below are going to have several spikes (peaks). Count them, and then learn what a domain is and why it's important.




.

Planck's will not predict a High-Low-High series of peaks. Your picture doesn't show the strength of each peak; mine did. I'll repost it:



The second-to-leftmost peak is shorter than both neighboring peaks. This is not predicted with Planck's.

Furthermore, we don't get
________X
____X___X
____X___X

We get
________X
____X__XX
___XXX_XX

See? This displays an up-and-down that cannot be explained away by domains.

jwoodward48 wrote:
How about describing this "meaning," instead of more Bulverism.

"since you don't understand domains [you are illiterate], you fail to understand the meaning [you say X]." This can be rephrased as "You say X because you are illiterate." This is Bulverism at its finest.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: I've given it before. Yes, I do know what the equation is. A direct result of Planck's is Wien's.

I'm looking at the formula and I don't see any requirements on the domain. Are you looking at it? No requirements at all. So these guys below are going to have several spikes (peaks). Count them, and then learn what a domain is and why it's important.

Surface Detail wrote:Yes, that is the equation for Planck's Law, and yes, those are some nice representations of the line spectra of different gases. The text between them makes no sense whatsoever, though.

Surface Detail wrote: How can Planck's Law give different spectra for different gases when it is purely a function of temperature and wavelength?

Surface Detail wrote: What does the domain of the function have to do with anything?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Yes, that is the equation for Planck's Law, and yes, those are some nice representations of the line spectra of different gases. The text between them makes no sense whatsoever, though.

...because you are an uneducated moron.

Surface Detail wrote: How can Planck's Law give different spectra for different gases when it is purely a function of temperature and wavelength?

Learn what a domain is.

Surface Detail wrote: What does the domain of the function have to do with anything?

Everything. Go get educated. Try a school in the US.

Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:So you have no answers. Just abuse. I expected no better from you.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:So you have no answers. Just abuse. I expected no better from you.

Sorry dumbass, explanations to you are a waste of time. I have repeated the correct answer too many times and it's all time sucked out of my life that I won't ever get back. You're apparently too stupid to learn and too much of an ashsole to carry on a polite conversation so blome E.

Anything you don't understand you blame on someone else. You should have gotten an education first before you jumped in to start hurling insults. Now you're crying like a baby because you made it obvious that you know nothing and that you were indoctrinated into a scam religion.

Yes, it sucks to be you. That's not my fault.

If anything should ever change and you become interested in learning something, state such, be polite, ditch the bulverism and read what others write instead of just ignoring it because it runs against your stupid religion.

Until then, don't expect a whole lot of respect for either you or your WACKY faith.

How can Planck's Law give different spectra for different gases when it is purely a function of temperature and wavelength?

Surface Detail wrote: Do you have no self-awareness at all?

Surface Detail wrote: It is you doing the name calling.

Surface Detail wrote: I simply asked the question:

Surface Detail wrote:[quote]How can Planck's Law give different spectra for different gases when it is purely a function of temperature and wavelength?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Do you have no self-awareness at all?

...asks the man who is about to ask "Who am I? Where am I? What was that religion that hit me?"

Surface Detail wrote: It is you doing the name calling.

No, I'm responding with the same insulting lack of respect that you dish out. Blome E. Let me know when you want that to change.

Surface Detail wrote: I simply asked the question:

You simply ignored my explanations that ran counter to your WACKY dogma and then insulted me ... repeatedly. Fukc you. You're a religious dupe who knows nothing and who can't even read/understand an easy equation.

Surface Detail wrote:[quote]How can Planck's Law give different spectra for different gases when it is purely a function of temperature and wavelength?

...and I gave you the correct answer: examine the domains.

It turns out that you don't know what a domain is. You became flustered and decided to blame me. You became abusive and insulting. Fukc you. Go learn what a domain is ashsole.

What are you going to do when your religion tanks out of lack of interest?

Surface Detail wrote:Ha, ha. How is "examine the domains" an answer to anything? Comedy gold!

jwoodward48 wrote: Surface, as far as I can tell, ...

jwoodward48 wrote: I'm trying to help Surface understand you; I am trying to help you be understood by Surface.