Remember me
▼ Content

I have a theory



Page 2 of 3<123>
17-10-2016 23:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IB, I'm not blaming you. I'm not saying that you started it. I'm just noting that saying things like

...and they're both as stupid as fock. They probably depend on Wikipedia to find the bathroom.


is detrimental to what people think of you. I know that my first impression of you was shaped significantly by statements like that, and it means that people are less likely to listen to you.
18-10-2016 00:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, I'm not blaming you. I'm not saying that you started it. I'm just noting that saying things like

...and they're both as stupid as fock. They probably depend on Wikipedia to find the bathroom.


is detrimental to what people think of you. I know that my first impression of you was shaped significantly by statements like that, and it means that people are less likely to listen to you.


Your loss.

To make such a statement is Bulveristic.

Did you know it's not really possible to be politically correct?


The Parrot Killer
18-10-2016 00:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, by the four hells. I'm not making a subjective statement of right or wrong. I am saying that acting the way IB does makes people less likely to listen to him. If he wants to continue, his loss. I don't mind.

And how on Earth was that Bulveristic? Could you summarize the supposed Bulverism in an "X therefore Y" statement?
Edited on 18-10-2016 00:21
18-10-2016 01:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
jwoodward48 wrote:is detrimental to what people think of you.

Not possible.

Both Surface Detail and spot hated me from the moment they sniffed the scent of dissenting opinions. They instantaneously turned on the turbo-ashsole mode and there was nothing I could do to change that.

...but I sure as hell can mock their ignorance and feel good at getting a laugh at their expense. As long as they post on this site I will happily examine every stupid thing they say.

jwoodward48 wrote:I know that my first impression of you was shaped significantly by statements like that, and it means that people are less likely to listen to you.

First, please recall that you too barged in here a bulveristic, intellectually dishonest ashsole and I was simply responding to that. Whenever you ditched the crap attitude I was happy to discuss with you, but I don't play that "respect is a one-way steeet" game.

Secondly, warmizombies don't listen anyway. The have science denial hard-wired into thier world view.

Third, I stick to science and warmizombies don't want science creeping into the discussion any more than they want rattlesnakes crawling into their beds. They instinctively arch their backs and hiss, ... and that is what keeps them from listening and learning.

Has Surface Detail by chance PMed you with an example of a gas that radiates in violation of Planck's law?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-10-2016 03:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:is detrimental to what people think of you.

Not possible.

Both Surface Detail and spot hated me from the moment they sniffed the scent of dissenting opinions. They instantaneously turned on the turbo-ashsole mode and there was nothing I could do to change that.

...but I sure as hell can mock their ignorance and feel good at getting a laugh at their expense. As long as they post on this site I will happily examine every stupid thing they say.

Edit: Sorry, I shouldn't take jabs at people. I should instead feel smug and superior for not doing so.

jwoodward48 wrote:I know that my first impression of you was shaped significantly by statements like that, and it means that people are less likely to listen to you.

First, please recall that you too barged in here a bulveristic, intellectually dishonest ashsole and I was simply responding to that. Whenever you ditched the crap attitude I was happy to discuss with you, but I don't play that "respect is a one-way steeet" game.

Oh don't you pull that crap. I posted one sentence, noting that regardless of where Warmists and Deniers stand, we're both far better than Flat Earthers, 9/11 Truthers, and Moon Landing Hoaxers. How is that intellectually dishonest or Bulveristic?
Secondly, warmizombies don't listen anyway. The have science denial hard-wired into thier world view.

What if somebody did listen? Would they no longer be a Warmist?
Third, I stick to science and warmizombies don't want science creeping into the discussion any more than they want rattlesnakes crawling into their beds. They instinctively arch their backs and hiss, ... and that is what keeps them from listening and learning.

Has Surface Detail by chance PMed you with an example of a gas that radiates in violation of Planck's law?


.


Not yet.


"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 18-10-2016 04:09
18-10-2016 04:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, by the four hells. I'm not making a subjective statement of right or wrong. I am saying that acting the way IB does makes people less likely to listen to him. If he wants to continue, his loss. I don't mind.

No, your loss. IBDaMann hasn't lost anything. He is still perfectly able to present his arguments in his style. Nothing has changed for him. It is your loss if you don't listen to them. You very easily might no learn something you could have.

jwoodward48 wrote:
And how on Earth was that Bulveristic? Could you summarize the supposed Bulverism in an "X therefore Y" statement?


Bulverism doesn't take that form. Bulverism attacks the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself. You made that statement as a circular argument.

You really should go read Through the Looking Glass. It's an entertaining book.


The Parrot Killer
18-10-2016 04:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, by the four hells. I'm not making a subjective statement of right or wrong. I am saying that acting the way IB does makes people less likely to listen to him. If he wants to continue, his loss. I don't mind.

No, your loss. IBDaMann hasn't lost anything. He is still perfectly able to present his arguments in his style. Nothing has changed for him. It is your loss if you don't listen to them. You very easily might no learn something you could have.

I am listening. I'm saying that other people quite likely won't. IB's rants are surprisingly scientifically accurate, but most people notice the rantiness before the scientificality. (Yes, that was on purpose.)
jwoodward48 wrote:
And how on Earth was that Bulveristic? Could you summarize the supposed Bulverism in an "X therefore Y" statement?


Bulverism doesn't take that form. Bulverism attacks the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself. You made that statement as a circular argument.

You really should go read Through the Looking Glass. It's an entertaining book.


"Bulverism is a logical fallacy that combines a genetic fallacy with circular reasoning. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error". The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive."

So an example is:

"Any two sides of a triangle are together greater than the third."
"Oh you say that because you are a man."

Or:

"You are a man therefore you say X."

This in itself doesn't support anyone's argument, but there is an implied "anything that you only say because you are a man must be false," or "if you say that because you are a man, that is false."

So:

1. You say X because you are a man.
2. Anything that you say because you are a man is false.
3. X is false.

Also, CS Lewis coined the term "Bulverism", and he didn't write Through the Looking Glass.


"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!
18-10-2016 04:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
jwoodward48 wrote: Oh don't you pull that crap.

Oooh, doubling down I see! I will call your bluff.


jwoodward48 wrote:I posted one sentence, noting that regardless of where Warmists and Deniers stand, we're both far better than Flat Earthers,

...and that post is completely irrelevant.

You mocked "skeptics" and then lumped me in with them.

I then explained why I am not a "skeptic."

You, for reasons of bulverism, then turned on the crap and it went downhill from there. I thought we agreed to shake hands at one point thereafter and press forward.

Does your recollection differ?


.


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
18-10-2016 10:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB's rants are surprisingly scientifically accurate, but most people notice the rantiness before the scientificality.

Heh. I'd like to see a list of the scientifically accurate points that IBdaMann has made! All I see is a fundamental inability to understand the basic principles of science coupled with utter conviction in his own infallibility. He's a good writer, I'll grant him that; he'd do better to stick to political polemic rather than attempting to discuss science.
18-10-2016 11:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
It's not true, I did try and engage with ITN and Ibdamann at first however after a series of trollish comments and childish insults and a realisation that there was no moderation I started responding in kind.
18-10-2016 13:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
spot wrote: It's not true, I did try and engage with ITN and Ibdamann at first however after a series of trollish comments and childish insults and a realisation that there was no moderation I started responding in kind.

Your "attempts to engage" are nothing more than condescending, bulveristic quips. Along those lines, you consider differing viewpoints, and science in general, as nothing more than "trollish comments."

.


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
18-10-2016 13:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
Surface Detail wrote: Heh. I'd like to see a list of the scientifically accurate points that IBdaMann has made!

Let's start with the first one:

Your assertion that gases radiate in violation of Planck's is false.

Your supporting set of examples would be?


.


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
18-10-2016 13:49
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Heh. I'd like to see a list of the scientifically accurate points that IBdaMann has made!

Let's start with the first one:

Your assertion that gases radiate in violation of Planck's is false.

Your supporting set of examples would be?


.


Examples have been provided, you already acknowlege that air is not a body therefore it cannot be a black body. Why if you extract individual gases from air they become bodies I have no idea.

Also every description of Planks law I have read specifically mentions black bodies, if it's universally applicable why is that caveat there?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
18-10-2016 13:49
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Heh. I'd like to see a list of the scientifically accurate points that IBdaMann has made!

Let's start with the first one:

Your assertion that gases radiate in violation of Planck's is false.

Your supporting set of examples would be?


.


Examples have been provided, you already acknowlege that air is not a body therefore it cannot be a black body. Why if you extract individual gases from air they become bodies I have no idea.

Also every description of Planks law I have read specifically mentions black bodies, if it's universally applicable why is that caveat there?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
18-10-2016 14:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Heh. I'd like to see a list of the scientifically accurate points that IBdaMann has made!

Let's start with the first one:

Your assertion that gases radiate in violation of Planck's is false.

Your supporting set of examples would be?

As I have written before, there is absolutely no reason to believe that gases radiate according to Planck's Law. Planck formulated his law to account for radiation specifically from black bodies; gases are not black bodies. It is also glaringly obvious to anyone with any knowledge at all of radiative physics that gases cannot possibly radiate according to Planck's Law. Spectroscopy, for example, depends on gases not radiating according to Planck's Law.

As I have also written before, your belief that gases radiate in this way is akin to a belief that pigs are capable of flying. I cannot give you any examples of studies verifying that pigs cannot fly for the same reason: no-one has performed such experiments because they would be pointless. Since you are the one insisting that gases do radiate in accordance with Planck's Law, the onus is on you to give examples of such gases. Indeed, you have claimed that experiments have been performed demonstrating this, yet you refuse to give any evidence of them. Why might this be?
18-10-2016 14:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
spot wrote: Examples have been provided,

None have been provided.

An example needs to be in the form of a 3-tuple: (gas, temperature, wavelength in that gas' domain) ...such that when you measure the E of that gas' radiation at that wavelength at that temperature you get a value that differs from what Planck's specifies.

Like I said, no one has ever provided any such example.

spot wrote: ... you already acknowlege that air is not a body therefore it cannot be a black body.

Yes, I acknowledge such.

Oh wait, are you still on your scientifically ignorant religion-supporting kick of trying to nullify science by having it declared "Not Applicable"? Are you going to insist that Planck's does not apply to the earth's atmosphere and to earth's "Climate" goddess because Planck's somehow only "applies" to black bodies and does not apply to everything, everywhere at all times? Are you going to warn us to be very, very wary of being lulled into an understanding that Planck's merely uses ideal black bodies (which have a domain of all wavelength values) as a base reference?

Is that your argument? We could be done with this discussion before I finish my breakfast.

spot wrote: Also every description of Planks law I have read specifically mentions black bodies, if it's universally applicable why is that caveat there?

That should be your clue to lift your head out of strictly warmizombie websites that give you your warm, fuzzy religious high, and actually learn/understand Planck's. Planck's is science. It's not a story that you just read about. Every warmizombie will give you a different ending, and none of them will impart the fundamental understanding that will answer your questions. Certainly none will ever provide any chapters of the story that put the Global Warming faith in jeopardy or that would naturally cause you to question any of the basic tenets of the WACKY dogma.

It's better to just refer to Planck's as one big trollish comment. I mean, what was Planck thinking in the first place? He obviously wasn't a "climate scientist." Sheesh.



.


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
18-10-2016 14:34
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
Entertaning, I notice that despite the legnth of your response you have not answered the questions. But perhaps you could define Plancks law for us and how it came to be derived it might be helpful because we seem to have differing veiws on what it actually is.
18-10-2016 15:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
spot wrote: Entertaning, I notice that despite the legnth of your response you have not answered the questions.

That's crazy. Despite clearly answering your question, your cognitive dissonance prohibits you from "seeing" the answer and explanation right in front of you.

I don't know how to help you beyond recommending you go back to your warmizombie websites and just get high. Feel good. You only live once. If science brings you down then push it aside and indulge in that good old-time religion. Planck's can't bother you if you are seated at the right hand of Climate.

spot wrote: But perhaps you could define Plancks law for us

That has been posted many times recently.



spot wrote: ... and how it came to be derived

That's completely irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

spot wrote: ... it might be helpful because we seem to have differing veiws on what it actually is.

If your view is that Planck's is something other than the above then you are mistaken and we've resolved the matter.


.


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
18-10-2016 15:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IB, what's the point? How can you use Planck's to disprove the GHE?
18-10-2016 15:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
If something that hot gives off that much energy perhaps you can explain how spacecraft still function within the thermosphere because just blindly applying that formula seems to suggest they would melt.
18-10-2016 15:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
If something that hot gives off that much energy perhaps you can explain how spacecraft still function within the thermosphere because just blindly applying that formula seems to suggest they would melt.
18-10-2016 15:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
If something that hot gives off that much energy perhaps you can explain how spacecraft still function within the thermosphere because just blindly applying that formula seems to suggest they would melt.
18-10-2016 16:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
jwoodward48 wrote: IB, what's the point? How can you use Planck's to disprove the GHE?

Planck's blows away all versions of "greenhouse effect" that try to violate Planck's.

You know that warmizombies need "greenhouse effect" to be TRUE. The entire Global Warming faith collapses without it. As such, warmizombies systematically attempt to violate every law of physics, one by one, in an attempt to find the Holy Grail of Global Warming, i.e. settled science that PROVES the religion is true.

Unfortunately, "greenhouse effect" at its core is a violation of physics. It's an increase in energy (in the form of temperature) where energy cannot increase (1st LoT). Ergo, warmizombies concoct one "explanation" after another, each leveraging a different violation of physics, hoping beyond hope that this will be the Holy Grail they seek.

I've accompanied many warmizombies on their search, pointing out how their new "explanation" violates physics. They all follow the same path and it's a trivial matter to foresee where any one of them will be trying to lead the discussion.

Warmizombies usually wander into Planck's after getting stonewalled by Stefan-Boltzmann. Whenever a simple model like Stefan-Boltzmann thwarts their efforts they seek the refuge of heavy convolution. Diving into quantum mechanics usually feels to them like a safe bet. They think that if they can just reduce everything down to the individual photon level that they can then pull out some complex statistical equations if necessary and hide behind them.

They never anticipate me pulling out Planck's and showing how they are violating it. The next step is essentially automatic, i.e. declare Planck's "Not Applicable!" Of course that doesn't work but it requires work because warmizombies are intellectually lazy and they will only "learn" whatever is written in Wikipedia, which is usually off slightly in some way. In this case, Wikipedia does not explain that an ideal black body is just a reference. Wikipedia presents the material as though Planck's APPLIES to only ideal black bodies which don't exist. Before you claim that "No one is arguing that Planck's doesn't apply to anything in nature" you would be greatly mistaken. I'm not sure (I would have to go back and check first) but I think Surface Detail started down that road at one point (a while before your arrival). Surface Detail only "knows" what Wikipedia gives him permission to learn.

So Planck's becomes a sort of "dead end" for these Holy Grail searches. It leaves warmizombies grumbling, accusing non-believers of "not even knowing basic science" and going in circles, returning to insisting that Planck's "does not apply!"

Planck's applies everywhere to all things always.

I hope that helps.


.


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
18-10-2016 16:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Planck's doesn't say that only temperature affects emission, though; other factors (mainly the nature of the radiating substance) also affect the radiance.
18-10-2016 16:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Planck's doesn't say that only temperature affects emission, though; other factors (mainly the nature of the radiating substance) also affect the radiance.

Actually, that's exactly what Planck's Law does say. Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance at a particular wavelength of an ideal black body as function of temperature alone. If gases emitted in accordance with Planck's Law, spectroscopy would be impossible. The mere existence of spectroscopy proves that gaseous substances do not emit radiation in accordance with Planck's Law.
18-10-2016 17:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, he says that it's Planck's, plus something about the incoming light, plus something about the domain of the gases involved. All those together might very well make up the correct function, but it's more complex than just Planck's.
18-10-2016 20:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
spot wrote: If something that hot gives off that much energy perhaps you can explain how spacecraft still function within the thermosphere because just blindly applying that formula seems to suggest they would melt.

Actually, it doesn't seem to suggest that.


.


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
18-10-2016 21:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, by the four hells. I'm not making a subjective statement of right or wrong. I am saying that acting the way IB does makes people less likely to listen to him. If he wants to continue, his loss. I don't mind.

No, your loss. IBDaMann hasn't lost anything. He is still perfectly able to present his arguments in his style. Nothing has changed for him. It is your loss if you don't listen to them. You very easily might no learn something you could have.

I am listening. I'm saying that other people quite likely won't. IB's rants are surprisingly scientifically accurate, but most people notice the rantiness before the scientificality. (Yes, that was on purpose.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
And how on Earth was that Bulveristic? Could you summarize the supposed Bulverism in an "X therefore Y" statement?


Bulverism doesn't take that form. Bulverism attacks the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself. You made that statement as a circular argument.

You really should go read Through the Looking Glass. It's an entertaining book.


"Bulverism is a logical fallacy that combines a genetic fallacy with circular reasoning. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error". The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive."

So an example is:

"Any two sides of a triangle are together greater than the third."
"Oh you say that because you are a man."

Or:

"You are a man therefore you say X."

This in itself doesn't support anyone's argument, but there is an implied "anything that you only say because you are a man must be false," or "if you say that because you are a man, that is false."

So:

1. You say X because you are a man.
2. Anything that you say because you are a man is false.
3. X is false.

Also, CS Lewis coined the term "Bulverism", and he didn't write Through the Looking Glass.

First, IBDaMann doesn't rant. You do. This post is a great example.

Second, you are still making a Bulveristic statement, denying that you did, then following that up with an example of what you did.


The Parrot Killer
18-10-2016 21:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance at a particular wavelength of an ideal black body as function of temperature alone.

I don't know if your British education taught you to conflate intervals with points but normally in English we don't consider it correct to refer to the entire spectral radiance at just one wavelength.

Maybe math works differently in the UK? I know you guys consider mathematics to be a plural because it ends in an "s"...like calculus, bus, lupus, hagus, corps, chess, etc... so you call it "maths" and maybe over on your side of the pond it's a completely different thing. I don't know, I've never been to the UK.


.


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
18-10-2016 21:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, by the four hells. I'm not making a subjective statement of right or wrong. I am saying that acting the way IB does makes people less likely to listen to him. If he wants to continue, his loss. I don't mind.

No, your loss. IBDaMann hasn't lost anything. He is still perfectly able to present his arguments in his style. Nothing has changed for him. It is your loss if you don't listen to them. You very easily might no learn something you could have.

I am listening. I'm saying that other people quite likely won't. IB's rants are surprisingly scientifically accurate, but most people notice the rantiness before the scientificality. (Yes, that was on purpose.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
And how on Earth was that Bulveristic? Could you summarize the supposed Bulverism in an "X therefore Y" statement?


Bulverism doesn't take that form. Bulverism attacks the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself. You made that statement as a circular argument.

You really should go read Through the Looking Glass. It's an entertaining book.


"Bulverism is a logical fallacy that combines a genetic fallacy with circular reasoning. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error". The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive."

So an example is:

"Any two sides of a triangle are together greater than the third."
"Oh you say that because you are a man."

Or:

"You are a man therefore you say X."

This in itself doesn't support anyone's argument, but there is an implied "anything that you only say because you are a man must be false," or "if you say that because you are a man, that is false."

So:

1. You say X because you are a man.
2. Anything that you say because you are a man is false.
3. X is false.

Also, CS Lewis coined the term "Bulverism", and he didn't write Through the Looking Glass.

First, IBDaMann doesn't rant. You do. This post is a great example.

Second, you are still making a Bulveristic statement, denying that you did, then following that up with an example of what you did.


Oh really? How interesting. Care to elucidate?


"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 18-10-2016 21:56
18-10-2016 22:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
jwoodward48 wrote: Oh really? How interesting. Care to elucidate?

How typical. You only ask that because you're a man.

I'll give you my thoughts on the matter: Go Liverpool!


.


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
18-10-2016 23:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
spot wrote:
If something that hot gives off that much energy perhaps you can explain how spacecraft still function within the thermosphere because just blindly applying that formula seems to suggest they would melt.


Why would it?


The Parrot Killer
18-10-2016 23:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Planck's doesn't say that only temperature affects emission, though; other factors (mainly the nature of the radiating substance) also affect the radiance.

Actually, that's exactly what Planck's Law does say. Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance at a particular wavelength of an ideal black body as function of temperature alone. If gases emitted in accordance with Planck's Law, spectroscopy would be impossible. The mere existence of spectroscopy proves that gaseous substances do not emit radiation in accordance with Planck's Law.


No, you need to specify the wavelength as well. You can also run the equation over a domain of wavelengths.


The Parrot Killer
18-10-2016 23:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Planck's doesn't say that only temperature affects emission, though; other factors (mainly the nature of the radiating substance) also affect the radiance.

Actually, that's exactly what Planck's Law does say. Planck's Law gives the spectral radiance at a particular wavelength of an ideal black body as function of temperature alone. If gases emitted in accordance with Planck's Law, spectroscopy would be impossible. The mere existence of spectroscopy proves that gaseous substances do not emit radiation in accordance with Planck's Law.


No, you need to specify the wavelength as well. You can also run the equation over a domain of wavelengths.

Yes, that's what I meant. That's why I wrote "particular wavelength". The point is that your only inputs are temperature and wavelength. If gases followed Planck's Law, spectroscopy would be impossible since all substances would emit with the same spectral radiance for a given temperature and wavelength.
18-10-2016 23:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
There are many factors that affect the spectral radiance of a substance. Planck's Law is one, but it is not the only one.
19-10-2016 01:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
jwoodward48 wrote:
There are many factors that affect the spectral radiance of a substance. Planck's Law is one, but it is not the only one.

You've really attached yourself to the term "spectral radiance," presumably because Surface Detail was using it. Your statement above doesn't really say anything.

Question: Given a substance S at temperature T that is radiating wavelength W, is there anything outside Planck's that governs the E of that radiance?


.


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
19-10-2016 01:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
There are many factors that affect the spectral radiance of a substance. Planck's Law is one, but it is not the only one.

I think that depends very much on the state of the substance.

Planck's Law is derived with the assumption that there is essentially an infinite number of possible quantised energy levels available. This is approximately true for solids, where the interactions of the constituent atoms or molecules give rise to a continuum of energy levels.

In gases, though, where the atoms or molecules are isolated from one another, only a limited number of possible energy levels are available, and transitions between these energy states produce the characteristic line spectra. The relative intensities of the lines are determined by the temperature, the difference between energy levels and the average lifetime of each energy level. It's hard to see how Planck's Law could possibly apply to this situation.
19-10-2016 08:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
Surface Detail wrote:Planck's Law is derived with the assumption that there is essentially an infinite number of possible quantised energy levels available.

Planck's Law carries the implication that there are many quantised energy levels possible, in fact more than you may want to count, but the word "infinite" is inappropriate.

Surface Detail wrote: In gases, though, where the atoms or molecules are isolated from one another, only a limited number of possible energy levels are available, and transitions between these energy states produce the characteristic line spectra. The relative intensities of the lines are determined by the temperature, the difference between energy levels and the average lifetime of each energy level. It's hard to see how Planck's Law could possibly apply to this situation.

It is irrelevant to speak of your difficulty understanding Planck's. The question is whether you understand it yet.


.


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
19-10-2016 18:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1060)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
If something that hot gives off that much energy perhaps you can explain how spacecraft still function within the thermosphere because just blindly applying that formula seems to suggest they would melt.


Why would it?


If you have to ask your not qualified to tell people what science is or isn't.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
19-10-2016 20:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
If something that hot gives off that much energy perhaps you can explain how spacecraft still function within the thermosphere because just blindly applying that formula seems to suggest they would melt.


Why would it?


If you have to ask your not qualified to tell people what science is or isn't.


No, it is YOU that doesn't understand science, or the effects of the thermosphere upon spacecraft.

I help build this stuff, remember.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate I have a theory:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy215-09-2019 18:46
Theory coming to fruition?1418-05-2019 22:43
An alternative theory from a non-scientist529-04-2019 18:28
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?325-04-2019 05:47
Is Gore's theory CO2 causes warming false?2731-01-2019 00:19
Articles
Theory
▲ 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