Remember me
▼ Content

Spending



Page 3 of 4<1234>
09-06-2019 22:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
Into the Night wrote: For a universe to be a universe, it must contain everything. If there are two or more universes, neither one is a universe, for neither one is universal in scope.

Correct. Each one would be a cosmic partition, ... or a unit-verse.

Into the Night wrote: Gravity is not 'rare' or 'well done'. It's everywhere in the universe (as far as we have been able to observe), even between galaxies.

When choosing someone to grill the steaks, you need someone who understands the gravity of the situation.

Gravity steaks go well with a nice word salad ... and I want to compete with James__: The universe is a 3-dimensional spectrum of fluctuating gravity wells ... an interconnected gradient network of inertial reference frames best enjoyed with a smooth vinagrette.

I'm here through Thursday.


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
09-06-2019 22:59
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
I like your phrase "word salad".

"Opinion salad" a good thing too. I've learned from the opinion salad here.
09-06-2019 23:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
Into the Night wrote:Doesn't either of these cases presume boundaries of a universe?

Sure.

Into the Night wrote: If there are boundaries, then what is outside it?

The answer to your question will require you to "imagine" and to acknowledge that there are things you can neither conceptualize nor fully grasp.

One of those concepts is of "nothing". You have nothing in your experience of a "nothing," of a "null." Sure, you might be able to conceptualize a vacuum, but that is still something. If you try to imagine "nothing" you generate mental imagery of something with which you allow to "represent" nothing, but you can't conjure up mental imagery of "nothing" because you have no idea what that is. None of us do.

There is nothing beyond the universe. Now it's up to you to figure out how you wish to conceptualize that. If you are incapable of generating a satisfactory cognitive model then unfortunately nobody else will be able to do it for you.

Into the Night wrote: It is quite possible the universe simply exists. It has always been and always will be.

That is certainly a valid speculation, but nonetheless requires additional speculation. If you acknowledge the red-shift implication that the universe is expanding, and if you don't have any religious upper age limit to the universe, then you must consider, as you conceptually go back in time, that everything in the universe was concentrated into a point (the singularity) which, as an inertial frame of reference, had infinite gravity and an infinitely slow rate of time, thus the beginning of universe was infinitely far back in the past, i.e. implying that yes, the universe simply always existed.

... or ... if you believe the cosmic density is sufficient to eventually cause the universe to collapse back into a singularity which will cause another Big Bang which will create an expanding universe that will expand to a point and then collapse in on itself back to a singularity which will cause another Big Bang, again and again ... then you can also say that the universe simply always existed, expanding, collapsing, expanding, collapsing, forever back in time and will continue to do so forever.

... or you might speculate, like many Christians, that the universe did not always exist, but that some Prime Mover knocked over the cosmic lab beaker and, poof, created a big cloud of dust in the form of a universe, one that happens to be expanding because when it's a universe, it takes a while for the dust to settle.

I happen to have my own theory, i.e. speculation. In fact, I have what would be a falsifiable model if only I could travel back in time and apply the scientific method by conducting experiments in a singularity. Nonetheless I'm hopeful that technological advancements will one day enable me to conduct my experiments. Do you think the scientific community will vote to accept my proxy data?

Into the Night wrote: There ARE other theories besides the Big Bang theory, and you already know that the Big Bang theory is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

When you're correct, you're correct.


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
09-06-2019 23:47
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
Professor and astrophysicist Fred Hoyle professed that the universe was always here. If i remember correctly he professed that there were cities on Mars or Venus.
He did come up with a lot of good theories though, one of which was "stellar nucleosynthesis", the source of energy in stars.
10-06-2019 00:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
keepit wrote: Professor and astrophysicist Fred Hoyle professed that the universe was always here.

Correction: Professor and astrophysicist Fred Hoyle speculated that the universe was always here.

keepit wrote: If i remember correctly he professed that there were cities on Mars or Venus.

Did he specify what kind of cities?

keepit wrote: He did come up with a lot of good theories though, one of which was "stellar nucleosynthesis", the source of energy in stars.

Did he not like the theory of gravity? That's how stars get their energy.


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
10-06-2019 02:38
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
Gravity causes great pressure in the interior of stars. The pressure increases the force of interaction between elements. Then because of quantum tunneling elemental particles are able to overcome the repulsive forces between individual atoms and then to combine to form larger elements.
Carly Simon sung about it in a song in the sixties or seventies very soon after the theory was developed. "we are stardust, billion year old carbon".
10-06-2019 02:47
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
Zager and Evans, same time period, wrote the song "In the Year 2525".
It says, "the twinkling of starlight, so very far away, maybe it's only YESTERDAY."
Astounding insight. They were one hit wonders.
Zager builds acoustic guitars for a living. Evans retired and did ? for a living. He died in 2019. His relatives are selling off his memorabilia on EBay.
I wish i know where these people got this knowledge.
10-06-2019 04:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
keepit wrote:Gravity causes great pressure in the interior of stars. The pressure increases the force of interaction between elements.

First, the force of gravity draws floating hydrogen together into a big ball. The pressure and temperture increase ... drastically. Fusion occurs forming helium and then denser elements.


keepit wrote: Then because of quantum tunneling elemental particles are able to overcome the repulsive forces between individual atoms and then to combine to form larger elements.

I'll have to refresh my memory but I'm fairly certain that quantum tunneling is not needed to explain how stars form and why there is great pressure within.

An understanding of gravity and a ballpark idea of the mass of a star is sufficient to explain the immense pressure.


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
10-06-2019 04:42
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
Quantum tunneling doesn't explain the actual formation of stars but even with the great pressure there isn't enough pressure for fusion. It requires quantum tunneling which is the actually rare event of atoms coming together close enough for nuclear fusion despite there not being enough pressure. QT is rare but there are so many atoms that even rare amounts to a lot.
The difficulty explains why fusion on earth has been such a problem

If we could do fusion on earth we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be plenty of energy without using fossil fuels.
Edited on 10-06-2019 04:43
10-06-2019 04:46
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
Doesn't anyone like the Zager and Evans story. It's one of my favorite s.
"Stars twinkling so very far away. Maybe its's only yesterday". How did those kids come up with that?
10-06-2019 05:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
keepit wrote: Quantum tunneling doesn't explain the actual formation of stars but even with the great pressure there isn't enough pressure for fusion.

Yes there is, and that's what causes it. No imagination about the mysterious quantum world is required to explain stellar fusion.

I would normally write out an explanation for you but I am feeling really lazy at the moment so I'll just cut-n-paste something from the internet ...

What is Fusion?

Fusion is a type of nuclear reaction where two nuclei come together to form the nucleus of a different element. Each element has a particular number of protons in the nucleus. Isotopes of an element all have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons.

In the core of a star, gravity produces high density and high temperature. The density of gas in the core of our sun is 160 g/cm3, much higher than the densest metal, and the temperature is 15,000,000 K (27 million degrees Fahrenheit). At this temperature, the hydrogen and helium gases become a plasma. That is, the electrons separate from the nuclei to give a mix of positively charged ions and electrons.

Under these conditions protons (H-1) react with other protons to make deuterium nuclei (H-2) and positrons. The deuterium nuclei can merge to form a helium nuclei (He-4), or they can interact with other protons to make another isotope of helium (He-3). Two He-3 nuclei can fuse to make a nucleus of an unstable beryllium nucleus (Be-6) that breaks apart to give He-4 and two protons. Energy is released at each step.

The fusion of hydrogen nuclei uses up hydrogen to produce helium and energy. Hydrogen is the fuel for the process. As the hydrogen is used up, the core of the star condenses and heats up even more. This promotes the fusion of heavier and heavier elements, ultimately forming all the elements up to iron.


keepit wrote: The difficulty explains why fusion on earth has been such a problem

Nope. Fusion is difficult on earth because nowhere on our planet do we have the intense temperature and pressure circumstances that the sun has.

In the sun, fusion is a piece of cake; it happens all the time. On earth, however, not so much.


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
10-06-2019 05:12
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
Quantum tunneling is required according to every thing about it i've ever read (well, almost everything).
Edited on 10-06-2019 05:16
10-06-2019 05:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
keepit wrote: Quantum tunneling is required according to every thing about it i've ever read (well, almost everything).

Forget everything you have ever read on the matter except for my recent post and 100% of everything you know on the subject will tell you what I've been saying.

I would advise you to steer clear of people providing mystical magical quantum explanations that don't survive Occam's razor.


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
10-06-2019 05:27
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
I don't know what to say IBDaMann.
Credibility becomes an issue.
What do you think of ZAger and EVans?
Edited on 10-06-2019 05:28
10-06-2019 08:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Doesn't either of these cases presume boundaries of a universe?

Sure.

Into the Night wrote: If there are boundaries, then what is outside it?

The answer to your question will require you to "imagine" and to acknowledge that there are things you can neither conceptualize nor fully grasp.

One of those concepts is of "nothing". You have nothing in your experience of a "nothing," of a "null." Sure, you might be able to conceptualize a vacuum, but that is still something. If you try to imagine "nothing" you generate mental imagery of something with which you allow to "represent" nothing, but you can't conjure up mental imagery of "nothing" because you have no idea what that is. None of us do.

There is nothing beyond the universe. Now it's up to you to figure out how you wish to conceptualize that. If you are incapable of generating a satisfactory cognitive model then unfortunately nobody else will be able to do it for you.

Into the Night wrote: It is quite possible the universe simply exists. It has always been and always will be.

That is certainly a valid speculation, but nonetheless requires additional speculation. If you acknowledge the red-shift implication that the universe is expanding, and if you don't have any religious upper age limit to the universe, then you must consider, as you conceptually go back in time, that everything in the universe was concentrated into a point (the singularity) which, as an inertial frame of reference, had infinite gravity and an infinitely slow rate of time, thus the beginning of universe was infinitely far back in the past, i.e. implying that yes, the universe simply always existed.

... or ... if you believe the cosmic density is sufficient to eventually cause the universe to collapse back into a singularity which will cause another Big Bang which will create an expanding universe that will expand to a point and then collapse in on itself back to a singularity which will cause another Big Bang, again and again ... then you can also say that the universe simply always existed, expanding, collapsing, expanding, collapsing, forever back in time and will continue to do so forever.

... or you might speculate, like many Christians, that the universe did not always exist, but that some Prime Mover knocked over the cosmic lab beaker and, poof, created a big cloud of dust in the form of a universe, one that happens to be expanding because when it's a universe, it takes a while for the dust to settle.

I happen to have my own theory, i.e. speculation. In fact, I have what would be a falsifiable model if only I could travel back in time and apply the scientific method by conducting experiments in a singularity. Nonetheless I'm hopeful that technological advancements will one day enable me to conduct my experiments. Do you think the scientific community will vote to accept my proxy data?

Into the Night wrote: There ARE other theories besides the Big Bang theory, and you already know that the Big Bang theory is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

When you're correct, you're correct.

The red shift that we see is in the part of the universe that we can see. We do not know what else is happening beyond our ability to see. There could be blue shift for all we know.


The Parrot Killer
10-06-2019 08:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
keepit wrote:
Professor and astrophysicist Fred Hoyle professed that the universe was always here. If i remember correctly he professed that there were cities on Mars or Venus.
He did come up with a lot of good theories though, one of which was "stellar nucleosynthesis", the source of energy in stars.


Neither the Theory of the Big Bang, nor the Theory of the Continuum. are theories of science. Both are not falsifiable theories. Both remain the circular arguments they started as. Both have extending arguments coming from them. Both are religions.


The Parrot Killer
10-06-2019 08:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
keepit wrote:
I don't know what to say IBDaMann.
Credibility becomes an issue.
What do you think of ZAger and EVans?


It's not about credibility. I believe he already gave his thoughts on Zager and Evans.


The Parrot Killer
10-06-2019 13:06
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
Question: How do\o you decide which is more credible, you or the UN or wiki.
Ans" I don't know. I've always though i was pretty credible.

I haven't seen anybody's thoughts on Zager and Evans.
Edited on 10-06-2019 13:07
10-06-2019 14:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
keepit wrote: I don't know what to say IBDaMann.
Credibility becomes an issue.

Credibility is never an issue in science because science is neither subjective nor subject to the ebbs and flows of anyone's opinions.

What the scientific method has to say is all that matters. You understand all this right? You know that no one owns science, right?

keepit wrote: What do you think of ZAger and EVans?


They are people. Their opinions are meaningless to me.

What science are they proposing? What falsifiable models of nature have they presented? What has the scientific method said in response?

These are the questions you should be asking. Are you telling me that you care about their opinions on a matter for which you have not answered these questions? If so then you are only undermining your own credibility on the topic ... and you are making it clear that you are not discussing science.

So ... what science are they proposing? What falsifiable models of nature have they presented? What has the scientific method said in response?


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
10-06-2019 15:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
Into the Night wrote: The red shift that we see is in the part of the universe that we can see.

That is to say that no one has ever observed any blue-shifting (on a stellar scale) which meets the criteria for establishing it as a scientific law, i.e. star -> moving away. All you need to do is be the first to spot one blue-shifting star and yes, the entire view of the universe will have to change.

Into the Night wrote: We do not know what else is happening beyond our ability to see. There could be blue shift for all we know.

Absolutely correct. Like I said, anyone's speculation about the unobserved (or "beyond" the unobserved) is just as valid as anyone else's.

I was not explicit in stating that I always apply Occam's razor in science, i.e. there is nothing beyond the unobserved, or nothing beyond our universe, because no science model need consider or account for it. You may, of course, so speculate in any way that helps you make sense of things but the moment you present speculation of the unobserved in a science context it will be stripped away by Occam's razor.

Actually, a better way to phrase it is that Occam's Razor will cut it away from science for it to be properly placed in other areas of philosophy and/or theology.

So today, what we know/observe is that all observed stars are moving away from us, i.e.

[Science]: "star -> moving away from us"

but in the bigger category of [Philosophy]: "There might be unobserved stars moving towards us"

... which feeds into the [Scientific Method] "Can we devise a test to discover currently unobserved stars that are moving towards 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
10-06-2019 19:23
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
I guess i should understand emissivity better and the factors that affect it.

I'm not sure sure there are individual galaxies beyond the visible universe that have a net movement toward us. Galaxies that far away have so much movement that most of them are moving faster than the speed of light from us. Their "proper" motion can't be faster than c according to relativity.
10-06-2019 19:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
keepit wrote:
Question: How do\o you decide which is more credible, you or the UN or wiki.

It's not about credibility.
keepit wrote:
Ans" I don't know. I've always though i was pretty credible.

It's not about credibility.
keepit wrote:
I haven't seen anybody's thoughts on Zager and Evans.

Then you haven't been reading.


The Parrot Killer
10-06-2019 19:50
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
I guess there could be another universe heading our way with its own big bang and its own cosmic expansion all of which is moving toward us relative to us. Matter of fact i'm sure of it.
In that sense you are right about galaxies moving toward us.
10-06-2019 20:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
keepit wrote: I guess i should understand emissivity better and the factors that affect it.


I'm happy to help. First, a few things from the Politiplex Science References:Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Emissivity_Constant = A numerical coefficient strictly between 0.0 and 1.0 (0.0 and 1.0 are purely theoretical limits that do not exist in nature) representing the body's total thermal efficiency percentage to absorb and to emit thermal radiation over all combined wavelengths


What is a "body"? It is any delimited, contiguous collection of matter. The Stefan-Boltzmann law apples to all matter, always, everywhere, whether it is an individual atom or a planet with an atmosphere and a hydrosphere.

What is a "black body"? Please refer to Black Body Science (and Planck's Law). It is any body in which thermal activity is occurring. The modifier "black" simply implies a focus on the body's thermal properties, i.e. having associated thermal energy and thermally radiating that energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The Laws of Thermodynamics are hard-coded into the definition of a black body by establishing an equilibrium temperature T for each body absorbing thermal radiation from a constant source such that the body's temperature will rise until reaching T and then will achieve thermal equilibrium and will remain at temperature T.


So let's imagine you "blast" two separate hockey pucks, each made of different materials, each with 100 Joules total energy over the full electromagnetic spectrum. Because both hockey pucks are made of matter, neither will absorb 100% of that electromagnetic energy (i.e. neither will have an emissivity of 1.0 because there are no ideal black bodies in nature), nor will either reflect 100% of that energy away (i.e. neither will have an emissivity of 0.0 because there are no "white bodies" in nature).

Let's say that hockey puck A has an emissivity of 0.85 while hockey puck B has an emissivity of 0.75 ... that means hockey puck A will absorb 85 Joules (and reflect 15) while hockey puck B will absorb 75 Joules (and reflect 25). This is what emissivity measures, i.e. the absorption efficiency.

Thanks to Kirchoff's law, we know that all matter emits with the exact same efficiency that it absorbs. Ergo we can surmise the following:

Let's imagine that you put both hockey pucks incident to a constant energy source such that hockey puck A arrives at a thermal equilibrium whereby it is absorbing 85Kw and emitting 85Kw while at temperature Temp(A). You will be able to predict that hockey puck B will arrive at a thermal equilibrium in which it is absorbing 75Kw and emitting 75Kw at a temperature Temp(B) that is specifically lower than Temp(A).

keepit wrote: Galaxies that far away have so much movement that most of them are moving faster than the speed of light from us.

What do you mean by "movement"? I've seen chicks on the dance floor with a lot of movement who weren't going anywhere.

Galaxies are themselves moving very, very fast, on the order of 1.5 million miles per hour. Nonetheless, two galaxies moving away from each other relatively at 3 million miles per hour falls well short of the speed of light (670 million miles per hour).


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
10-06-2019 20:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
keepit wrote:
I guess i should understand emissivity better and the factors that affect it.


It is simply a measured constant on how reflective a surface is (or more precisely, how easily a surface can absorb and emit blackbody light, as opposed to how well it reflects.

A 100% emissivity is the ideal black body you have read about (and are confused about). It is nothing but an ideal reference point that we call '1'. It is a perfect emitter and absorber of light, and has no reflectivity at all. Any light striking such a body will be absorbed. Any light coming from the body is due to blackbody radiance.

A 0% emissivity is the ideal white body (a perfectly reflective body that does not absorb light or emit any light).

All real bodies, such as Earth are somewhere in between.

All frequencies of light are combined for emissivity.

In the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, emissivity is a measured constant. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is also unknown for any planet. To measure emissivity, you must first accurately know the temperature of the body, measure the light coming from it, and compare that to an ideal black body of the same temperature.

Emissivity is basically affected by how rough the surface is. A shiny piece of metal, for example, has low emissivity. It is very reflective instead. That same piece of metal, when oxidized, has a higher emissivity.

Glossy black have a lower emissivity than a flat black. A glossy black car has a lower emissivity than the black asphalt roadway that it drives upon.

Different materials have different emissivities, largely again due to their roughness. A list of common materials and their emissivity coefficient can be found at [utl=https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html]The Engineering Toolbox[/url].

Note that liquid water and ice have very similar coefficients of emissivity.

Gases (such as air) also have a 'surface' they radiate from, which are the individual molecules themselves. The emissivity of all gases are pretty much the same, since all gases are fluids.

In terms of different gases, there is no significant difference between any of them for the purposes of emissivity. Gases under higher pressure do have a higher surface area simply because there are more molecules per unit volume. The emissivity doesn't change, but the surface area absorbing and emitting light from the gas does.

This is one reason why thick atmospheres are hotter than thin ones.

Venus, for example, has an atmosphere that is 900 times the pressure of Earth's atmosphere at the surface. This extraordinarily thick atmosphere not only absorbs and emits light better, it is also more that is contact with the surface (which absorbs and emits light much better than a gas). The fluid nature of the thick atmosphere conveys thermal energy around the planet so well that daytime temperatures are almost identical to night time temperatures. This is despite the extremely long day time, which lasts 120 days here on Earth. Nighttime of course is equally long on Venus, giving it a day/night cycle of 243 Earth days.

Despite all this consistency of temperatures on Venus, we still don't have any idea of the planet's overall temperature.


The Parrot Killer
10-06-2019 21:12
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
Thanks very much for your responses!
I'm digesting them but can give an answer on galaxies.
Galaxies that are near the edge of our visible universe are moving away at close to the speed of light. Galaxies that are beyond our visible universe are moving away at faster than the speed of light. It is a gradual change as you get farther away from us. Of course you have to buy into a lot of red shift science.

Here's definition of emissivity from Climate Change by William Burroughs.
Emissivity - the ratio of the emissive power of a surface at a given temp to that of a black body at the same temp and the same surroundings
11-06-2019 00:03
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1177)
One of things about Stefan-Boltzmann that doesn't fit right with me, is that it seems to be focused on the body being of consistent material and texture. A planet, is a vast assortment of materials, textures, elevations. Stuff moves around too. A lot of the energy comes from the sun, but populated areas produce thermal energy, and a few geothermal sources, like volcanos, compost piles. A planet only receives sunlight, half a day, some passes through the atmosphere, some doesn't quite make it to the surface, depends on weather conditions. A planet doesn't squeeze down to one convenient, simple number very well. I get the impression that Stefan-Boltzmann is more of a philosophical talking point, with a few real-world applications, but it's not the ultimate answer, doesn't apply to everything. When I first looked it up, I pretty much suspected that it had a very limited use, when I got to the 'ideal' bodies, which never actually exist. 'Ideal' only exist in a person's mind, and usually isn't the same as anyone else's vision of 'ideal'. I get the impression that Stefan-Boltzmann applies to a much simpler set of materials, standing still, and equally exposed to the energy source. Earth is constantly moving, changing, large variety of materials. Of course, I'm a skeptic, and I tend to believe there can be more than one answer or solution. I have little faith in much of anything these days...
11-06-2019 00:16
keepit
★★★☆☆
(490)
Hi Harvey,
I'm learning emissivity from ITN and IBDaMann plus wiki and william burroughs and others.
ITN and IBDaMann might not want me to use their name in the same sentence as wiki. I apologize for that.
Anyway, emissivity, as far as i understand it at this moment, is a ratio between the capability of an object to radiate and the capability of an ideal black body to radiate.
Here's the rub according to wiki - the ratio depends on the nature of the surface and also on the atmosphere surrounding it.
Edited on 11-06-2019 00:22
11-06-2019 00:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
HarveyH55 wrote:
One of things about Stefan-Boltzmann that doesn't fit right with me, is that it seems to be focused on the body being of consistent material and texture. A planet, is a vast assortment of materials, textures, elevations. Stuff moves around too.

This question is nicely answered with Kirchoff's law.

Basically, what this law says is that if you cut a system up into a series of individual energy nodes, the sum of these nodes is equal to the total energy. It is this law that allows you to consider Earth a uniform body, even despite all the variations that are upon it.

Whether stuff moves around is unimportant. It's still the same stuff. All that's moving around in Kirchoff's view is the individual energy levels of each node. They still sum to a total energy of all nodes combined.

Most people who first encounter this law work in electronics, since it is useful for calculating voltage dividers and the effects of voltage and current in resistor or impedance networks, but it applies to all energy.

Through Kirchoff's law, you CAN look at the Earth as a uniform whole gray body with a global emissivity value (which is unknown, since we don't know the temperature of the Earth); and it all works under the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

With gravity, each molecule of mass acts on every molecule of mass on Earth. You can sit there and calculate everything out, but you will find that when all the vectors sum together, you can refer to the center of gravity as a single point.

This is true whether you are considering molecules, chunks of Earth, or the entire Earth itself. They are the same when it comes to have a single point represent the same center of gravity.

Energy is the same way. This is what Kirchoff noted. He first applied it to electrical circuits, but it works for any energy.

Thus, Stefan-Boltzmann's law works whether you are considering molecules, square inches, square miles, square kilometers, etc. of a surface. The end result is the same.


The Parrot Killer
11-06-2019 00:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
keepit wrote:
Hi Harvey,
I'm learning emissivity from ITN and IBDaMann plus wiki and william burroughs and others.
ITN and IBDaMann might not want me to use their name in the same sentence as wiki. I apologize for that.
Anyway, emissivity, as far as i understand it at this moment, is a ratio between the capability of an object to radiate and the capability of an ideal black body to radiate.
Here's the rub according to wiki - the ratio depends on the nature of the surface and also on the atmosphere surrounding it.


The ratio does not depend on the atmosphere surrounding it. Wikipedia is wrong yet again. There is no term for atmosphere anywhere in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-06-2019 00:43
11-06-2019 05:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
HarveyH55 wrote: One of things about Stefan-Boltzmann that doesn't fit right with me, is that it seems to be focused on the body being of consistent material and texture.

Nope. Only that it is a body of matter.

Earth, with its atmosphere and its hydrosphere, has an emissivity. No one knows what it is exactly (for reasons you mention) but the earth is certainly made of matter, and for a given amount of solar energy that strikes the earth, a certain percentage is absorbed (i.e. its emissivity) and the remainder is reflected (which warmizombies refer to as "albedo")

I hope that clears that up.


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
11-06-2019 06:54
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
keepit wrote:
Hi Harvey,
I'm learning emissivity from ITN and IBDaMann plus wiki and william burroughs and others.
ITN and IBDaMann might not want me to use their name in the same sentence as wiki. I apologize for that.
Anyway, emissivity, as far as i understand it at this moment, is a ratio between the capability of an object to radiate and the capability of an ideal black body to radiate.
Here's the rub according to wiki - the ratio depends on the nature of the surface and also on the atmosphere surrounding it.



They don't know what they are talking about. If they did then they could explain P/A = eбT^4. If they know what they're talking about, it's a pretty straightforward explanation. Thing is, they don't have a clue.
11-06-2019 08:06
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
keepit, with what I posted, P/A = eбT^4 equals P = eбA(T^4 - T^4c). The first one is for a heated body that is not an ideal black body. With an ideal black body, e = 1.
They should have no problem explaining this to you. And with c after T^4, the atmosphere on Mars, the Moon, the Earth and Venus are all different. This means that the ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat influences the ability of a black body to radiate heat.
11-06-2019 15:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
James___ wrote: They don't know what they are talking about. If they did then they could explain P/A = eбT^4. If they know what they're talking about, it's a pretty straightforward explanation. Thing is, they don't have a clue.

Why are you so desperate for us to explain it to you? It's not like we haven't explained it to you many times already.

Look, you can read up on it thoroughly as many times as you want at Politiplex - Science References - Stefan-Boltzmann

The Stefan-Boltzmann 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
11-06-2019 15:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
James___ wrote: And with c after T^4, the atmosphere on Mars, the Moon, the Earth and Venus are all different. This means that the ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat influences the ability of a black body to radiate heat.

James__, you're losing it. There is no atmosphere component to Stefan-Boltzmann because the atmosphere is part of the black body.

There is only the black body. All parts of it, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the outer skin, the valence electrons, whatever ... they are all part of the black body.

You can't subdivide the body.


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
11-06-2019 20:18
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: And with c after T^4, the atmosphere on Mars, the Moon, the Earth and Venus are all different. This means that the ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat influences the ability of a black body to radiate heat.

James__, you're losing it. There is no atmosphere component to Stefan-Boltzmann because the atmosphere is part of the black body.

There is only the black body. All parts of it, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the outer skin, the valence electrons, whatever ... they are all part of the black body.

You can't subdivide the body.



There is an atmospheric component to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Neither you nor itn took the time to learn how that equation is applied. Neither one of you seems to understand physics or you'd be aware of what I'm pointing out to you.
11-06-2019 20:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: And with c after T^4, the atmosphere on Mars, the Moon, the Earth and Venus are all different. This means that the ability of the atmosphere to absorb heat influences the ability of a black body to radiate heat.

James__, you're losing it. There is no atmosphere component to Stefan-Boltzmann because the atmosphere is part of the black body.

There is only the black body. All parts of it, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the outer skin, the valence electrons, whatever ... they are all part of the black body.

You can't subdivide the body.



There is an atmospheric component to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

None.
James___ wrote:
Neither you nor itn took the time to learn how that equation is applied.

It is applied everywhere, all the time, for any light resulting from thermal energy.
James___ wrote:
Neither one of you seems to understand physics or you'd be aware of what I'm pointing out to you.

You are not pointing anything out.


The Parrot Killer
11-06-2019 21:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
James___ wrote: There is an atmospheric component to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Neither you nor itn took the time to learn how that equation is applied. Neither one of you seems to understand physics or you'd be aware of what I'm pointing out to you.


You need to first show that you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you clearly don't. Go read up on it as much as necessary and then get back to me when you have a clue.

Politiplex - Science References - Stefan-Boltzmann


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
12-06-2019 18:11
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: There is an atmospheric component to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Neither you nor itn took the time to learn how that equation is applied. Neither one of you seems to understand physics or you'd be aware of what I'm pointing out to you.


You need to first show that you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you clearly don't. Go read up on it as much as necessary and then get back to me when you have a clue.

Politiplex - Science References - Stefan-Boltzmann



That Holy Link of yours explained nothing. It kind of goes along with it's we need to define what "is" is. It seemed like all you did was string together different quotes you found online which you vaguely defined so YOU could give them meaning.
I'll give you a basic example of what you don't know. If anything absorbed all energy it is exposed to then it would a theoretical black hole. Since nothing on earth absorbs All solar radiation, what isn't absorbed is refracted. Neither yourself nor itn are willing to consider how refracted solar radiation is different from the black body radiation emitted by the earth. You simply ignore that part of the science.
12-06-2019 18:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: There is an atmospheric component to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Neither you nor itn took the time to learn how that equation is applied. Neither one of you seems to understand physics or you'd be aware of what I'm pointing out to you.


You need to first show that you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you clearly don't. Go read up on it as much as necessary and then get back to me when you have a clue.

Politiplex - Science References - Stefan-Boltzmann



That Holy Link of yours explained nothing.

Then you need to read it again.
James___ wrote:
It kind of goes along with it's we need to define what "is" is.

LAME. You are actually going to use Bill's quote??
James___ wrote:
It seemed like all you did was string together different quotes you found online which you vaguely defined so YOU could give them meaning.

They are equations. They are specific. They have a specific meaning.
James___ wrote:
I'll give you a basic example of what you don't know. If anything absorbed all energy it is exposed to then it would a theoretical black hole.

So now you are trying once again to change the equation by removing the emissivity term.
James___ wrote:
Since nothing on earth absorbs All solar radiation, what isn't absorbed is refracted.

Reflected, actually. You still can't seem to understand these two words either.
James___ wrote:
Neither yourself nor itn are willing to consider how refracted solar radiation is different from the black body radiation emitted by the earth.

One is emitted due to Earth's temperature. The reflected light is not.
James___ wrote:
You simply ignore that part of the science.

No, YOU are ignoring the science. YOU are trying to change the equation to remove the emissivity term. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-06-2019 18:27
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Spending:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
working and spending8422-08-2019 05:46
▲ 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