Remember me
▼ Content

Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith



Page 6 of 7<<<4567>
12-10-2016 00:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 01:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 02:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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:
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.


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

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.

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. 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.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 02:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 08:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 09:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 10:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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...

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:
[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.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 10:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


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


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 15:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote:Which equation? I've already done Planck's (with wavelength, but that doesn't matter).

No, you still haven't "done" Planck's.

Give me one measured E for the T and a W that doesn't adhere to Planck's.

You don't get to manufacture a convenient temperature just because you don't know what it is.


.


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
12-10-2016 15:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.
13-10-2016 00:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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:

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).


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 01:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
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?


.


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
13-10-2016 01:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?

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.
13-10-2016 01:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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).

There is a bit more to it than that!

Special Relativity superseded Newton's Laws of Motion by assuming that the speed of light is constant. This implied, among other things, that nothing can move faster than the speed of light and that time passes at different rates in different inertial frames.

General Relativity went on to incorporate gravitation into Special Relativity to give a full description of gravity as a property of spacetime curved by the presence of matter/energy.
13-10-2016 01:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
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.

.


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
13-10-2016 01:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 01:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

.

How would the domain of the equation tell you how many peaks the graph has?

You find the maxima and minima of an equation by differentiating it and determining the turning points, i.e. the zeros of the derivative. In the case of Planck's Law, the derivative of the equation has only one zero corresponding to a finite wavelength - that is wavelength of the maximum.

I must admit, though, that it's been a while since I've used calculus in anger. jwoodward48 can probably explain better it than me!
13-10-2016 01:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 02:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

Yes, Wien's displacement law can be obtained from Planck's Law by taking the derivative, setting this equal to zero, and then solving for lambda (which is basically what I was saying above). See here:

Wien's displacement law - Derivation from Planck's Law
13-10-2016 03:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
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.




.


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
13-10-2016 03:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


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


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 04:38
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 04:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 13-10-2016 04:42
13-10-2016 05:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The factor added by relativity does this. Newton's law still applies.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 05:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


It doesn't need 'explaining away'. But since you are failing to understand domains, you fail to understand the meaning of Planck's law.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 05:18
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.
13-10-2016 09:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


Try English next time. You have now redefined so many words you are essentially speaking a foreign language of your own making.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 10:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.


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. How can Planck's Law give different spectra for different gases when it is purely a function of temperature and wavelength? What does the domain of the function have to do with anything?
13-10-2016 13:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
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.


.


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
13-10-2016 13:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

So you have no answers. Just abuse. I expected no better from you.
13-10-2016 13:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
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.


.


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
13-10-2016 13:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

Do you have no self-awareness at all?

It is you doing the name calling. I simply asked the question:

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

And you responded with a tirade of abuse.

It is funny how you get so wound up when you are unable to disguise your lack of knowledge with rhetoric. Watch the blood pressure.
13-10-2016 14:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
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?


.


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
13-10-2016 14:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?

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

I think we can all see who's getting flustered.
13-10-2016 14:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Surface Detail wrote:Ha, ha. How is "examine the domains" an answer to anything? Comedy gold!

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

I think we can close this topic on that note.


.


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
13-10-2016 19:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Surface, as far as I can tell, they are calling these peaks:
_____X
__X__X
X_X__X
14-10-2016 16:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: Surface, as far as I can tell, ...

Operative 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
14-10-2016 17:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm trying to help Surface understand you; I am trying to help you be understood by Surface.
14-10-2016 17:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
jwoodward48 wrote: I'm trying to help Surface understand you; I am trying to help you be understood by Surface.

I'm calling BS. You are well aware that he doesn't want to understand any more than you do. You give yourself away by intentionally misrepresenting my position and you have no qualms with doing so because you just want to tell Surface Detail what you think he wants to hear/read anyway.

I have observed your wanton disinterest in learning any of the relevant math or science that happens to put your faith in jeopardy. This precludes you from correctly stating my position lest you reveal understanding. You prefer to either remain ignorant or to feign ignorance so as to not lose your grip on the dogma that gives you your "climate" fix.

Nothing kills a faith like learning. You are very aware of this and you choose your faith over learning. This explains why you have chosen Marxism as opposed to actually learning economics.

You have only three potential career paths: art, law and politics. Wait, biology is an option too. OK, so four. I hope you enjoy one of those.


.


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
14-10-2016 17:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, stop it. I am showing the graph:

_____X
__X__X
X_X__X

In which X represents a part of the graph, and _ is an annoying but necessary part to keep it from getting weird.

Does that have one, two, three, or no local maxima, or peaks? (Note that if there is no X in a particular column, that x-value is not within the domain.)
Page 6 of 7<<<4567>





Join the debate Global Warming: Weak in Argument but Strong in Faith:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
The Faith Basis for Radiometric Data627-05-2019 21:00
Climate change: CO2 emissions fall in 18 countries with strong policies, study finds126-02-2019 18:15
Maxime Bernier believes in climate change, but defends argument that CO2 is just 'food for plants'124-02-2019 18:59
Global Warming Argument Simplified7813-12-2018 00:30
▲ 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