Remember me
▼ Content

What is heat?



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
30-09-2016 21:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
spot the difference between the two graphs

One is a black-body one is not an expert on the laws of thermodynmics as you claim it should tell which is which.


One is in prettier colors than the other.

That's about it.



thats one with pretty colours, now can you see it?


Yeah....so?


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 21:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
According to my sources; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.


According toIBdaMann ;
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Go study this law from someplace besides the wasteland that is Wikipedia.


I thought you hate logical fallacy, saying something is wrong because its from Wikipedia and only because its from Wikipedia is a logical fallacy, I'm not claiming its infallible just in this case it's correct. Can you offer a source that contradicts it?

Thought not.

Dumass.


It is not a logical fallacy to claim a source is unreliable, biased, or badly written.

In the case of this particular article, it is badly written and biased.

You might try reading a good book on physics, or even searching for a better understanding of where Planck's law comes from and why.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 21:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Planck's Law will never predict multiple local maxima. Correct?


Why would it disallow it?


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 21:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
According to my sources; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.


According toIBdaMann ;
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Go study this law from someplace besides the wasteland that is Wikipedia.


I thought you hate logical fallacy, saying something is wrong because its from Wikipedia and only because its from Wikipedia is a logical fallacy, I'm not claiming its infallible just in this case it's correct. Can you offer a source that contradicts it?

Thought not.

Dumass.


It is not a logical fallacy to claim a source is unreliable, biased, or badly written.

In the case of this particular article, it is badly written and biased.

You might try reading a good book on physics, or even searching for a better understanding of where Planck's law comes from and why.


I think you're attempting to gaslight me. won't work

The point I made was Planks law applies to Black-bodies and not non-black-bodies. no reputable source will tell you otherwise no matter how non-biased and well written.
30-09-2016 21:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Planck's Law will never predict multiple local maxima. Correct?


Why would it disallow it?


What... You... How...

Show me a Planckian distribution with multiple peaks. I dare you. You won't, because the equation doesn't allow for multiple peaks.


"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!
30-09-2016 21:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Planck's Law will never predict multiple local maxima. Correct?


Why would it disallow it?


What... You... How...

Show me a Planckian distribution with multiple peaks. I dare you. You won't, because the equation doesn't allow for multiple peaks.

Exactly. The differential of Planck's function with respect to wavelength has only one turning point - corresponding to the wavelength of maximum intensity given by Wien's law.
30-09-2016 22:12
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Heat is vibration of molecules. It's quantum stuff. All air molecules vibrate. Whether it's O2 or N2 or CH4 or CO2. You name it. All air molecules have heat and conduct heat. There's nothing special about certain gasses and not others.


Heat is indeed the speed at which molecules are bashing against each other but it's not at all quantum.


Heat is vibration or energy excitement on a quantum level. It is not kinetic energy and does not bash.

Heat energy and kinetic energy are two completely different forms of energy.
Edited on 30-09-2016 22:13
30-09-2016 22:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Shows how much YOU know. Vibration IS kinetic.
30-09-2016 22:22
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Shows how much YOU know. Vibration IS kinetic.


Kinetic energy is mass and velocity. Kinetic energy is mass in motion. Heat is quantum wave vibration. Heat energy has nothing to do with mass in motion.
Edited on 30-09-2016 22:24
30-09-2016 22:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Heat is vibration of molecules. It's quantum stuff. All air molecules vibrate. Whether it's O2 or N2 or CH4 or CO2. You name it. All air molecules have heat and conduct heat. There's nothing special about certain gasses and not others.


Heat is indeed the speed at which molecules are bashing against each other but it's not at all quantum.


Heat is vibration or energy excitement on a quantum level. It is not kinetic energy and does not bash.

Heat energy and kinetic energy are two completely different forms of energy.

The internal energy of a gas is made up of both the kinetic energy of the moving molecules and their quantised internal energy. Energy is constantly exchanged between kinetic energy and internal states through collisions.

As a gas is heated, the molecules move around faster and more of them are in excited states. Those that are in excited states may fall to a lower state with the emission of a photon; likewise, those in lower states of excitation may absorb a photon to move to a high state.

Different gases have different energy levels and therefore emit and absorb photons of different energies. Greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and H2O, can emit and absorb IR radiation; other gases, such as O2 and N2, have no corresponding energy level differences and therefore cannot emit or absorb IR radiation.
30-09-2016 22:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I just can't believe that. You're claiming that O2 doesn't absorb light? Nonsense.
30-09-2016 22:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I just can't believe that. You're claiming that O2 doesn't absorb light? Nonsense.

Ah, my mistake. Yes, O2 does, of course, emit radiation according to Planck's law and therefore must also absorb all the light that falls on it. That's why we can't see through it.
Edited on 30-09-2016 22:34
30-09-2016 23:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I just can't believe that. You're claiming that O2 doesn't absorb light? Nonsense.

Ah, my mistake. Yes, O2 does, of course, emit radiation according to Planck's law and therefore must also absorb all the light that falls on it. That's why we can't see through it.


Like every other substance, O2 absorbs and emits light according to Planck's law.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 23:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I just can't believe that. You're claiming that O2 doesn't absorb light? Nonsense.

Ah, my mistake. Yes, O2 does, of course, emit radiation according to Planck's law and therefore must also absorb all the light that falls on it. That's why we can't see through it.


Like every other substance, O2 absorbs and emits light according to Planck's law.

Yes, that'll be why the atmosphere is opaque and we can't see anything.
30-09-2016 23:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, you idiot! You don't understand what domain is! YOU MATHEMATICALLY ILLITERATE BRITISH IDIOT! WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT A FUNCTION TO APPLY OUTSIDE OF ITS DOMAIN?!

On the serious side, S-B only works on black bodies - even if gases followed Planck's Law modified by cutting out wavelengths that the molecules cannot radiate, you still wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Also, explain the physical phenomenon for molecules radiating at a wavelength that does not correspond to the energy released when the molecule drops from one quantum state to another. If you GET GUD at science, you'll figure out that solids can do something that gases can't - that's why they follow Planck's Law more closely.
01-10-2016 00:06
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I just can't believe that. You're claiming that O2 doesn't absorb light? Nonsense.

Ah, my mistake. Yes, O2 does, of course, emit radiation according to Planck's law and therefore must also absorb all the light that falls on it. That's why we can't see through it.


Like every other substance, O2 absorbs and emits light according to Planck's law.


I'm curious. We can certainly see liquid nitrogen. That means N2 does absorb and reflect visible light. I don't get why some people think double atom molecules don't absorb or reflect light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYJCWStejSc]
Edited on 01-10-2016 00:15
01-10-2016 00:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, no, no! O2 does absorb light! Just not visible or IR light. You know UV rays? Ozone isn't the only absorber of UV light - O2 can also absorb ultraviolet light!

There are some wavelengths that O2 cannot absorb. It just will not absorb any of it - in its gaseous form! In its liquid or solid form, there is a particular phenomenon that occurs which allows multiple molecules to emit or absorb light at the same time, and with the same photon, IIRC. Gases can't do that (although very high-pressure gas or plasma might be able to do so).

Experimental verification: look at the sky. Does the oxygen obscure your vision, or can you see the Sun pretty clearly?
01-10-2016 00:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote:Ah, my mistake. Yes, O2 does, of course, emit radiation according to Planck's law and therefore must also absorb all the light that falls on it. That's why we can't see through it.

Thank you for revealing that you are stuck on misrepresenting my position because you ignore what I write.

@ jwoodward48 - same for you


.


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
01-10-2016 00:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Or maybe we can't understand your posts because they make no sense.
01-10-2016 00:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote:Yes, that'll be why the atmosphere is opaque and we can't see anything.

Yes, that'll be the egregious extent to which you don't understand Planck's.

You've also made it clear that it is pointless to explain it to you.

All this science denial just to defend your self-identity investment in "greenhouse effect." You apparently never heard of cutting your losses.


.


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
01-10-2016 00:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Of course he doesn't understand Planck's. At his prestigious British school, he never learned DOMAINS. What are DOMAINS? Not domains. DOMAINS. They have the magical property of making any incorrect statement correct.
01-10-2016 00:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Ah, I think I see now. All substances emit radiation in accordance with Planck's law. Except, of course, when they don't, because DOMAINS. Yes? Does this apply to liquid nitrogen too?
01-10-2016 01:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes! Now I can stop calling you an idiot! Now you are listening to SCIENCE. Remember, whatever I say is always right, even when it isn't. Keep doublethinking, good SCIENCEPERSON!
01-10-2016 02:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Of course he doesn't understand Planck's. At his prestigious British school, he never learned DOMAINS. What are DOMAINS? Not domains. DOMAINS. They have the magical property of making any incorrect statement correct.

...and now we can be certain that you were lying when you insisted you knew what a domain is.

And you wonder why all of this science stuff just flies over your head.

Too funny.


.


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
01-10-2016 03:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Or maybe we can't understand your posts because they make no sense.

Let me check, ... nope, it's your inability to read. Too many examples of that to presume anything else.


.


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
01-10-2016 03:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Of course he doesn't understand Planck's. At his prestigious British school, he never learned DOMAINS. What are DOMAINS? Not domains. DOMAINS. They have the magical property of making any incorrect statement correct.

...and now we can be certain that you were lying when you insisted you knew what a domain is.

And you wonder why all of this science stuff just flies over your head.

Too funny.

We know what the domain of a function is. The domain of Planck's function is all positive values of T and lambda. We're just not too sure what DOMAINS are. Perhaps you could elucidate?
Edited on 01-10-2016 03:42
01-10-2016 04:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote: We know what the domain of a function is.

No, you don't ... and you're about to make that clear.


Surface Detail wrote:The domain of Planck's function is all positive values of T and lambda.

Sorry. Nope. I'll give you a hint: nothing prevents you from trying to plug in negative values either, moron.

You really aren't too quick on the uptake, are you? And you let your silly religion do this to you. What a loser.


.


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
01-10-2016 04:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: We know what the domain of a function is.

No, you don't ... and you're about to make that clear.


Surface Detail wrote:The domain of Planck's function is all positive values of T and lambda.

Sorry. Nope. I'll give you a hint: nothing prevents you from trying to plug in negative values either, moron.

You really aren't too quick on the uptake, are you? And you let your silly religion do this to you. What a loser.

Reality stops you plugging in negative values, you dope! Do you really think that Planck's function can give a meaningful radiance for a negative temperature or wavelength?
01-10-2016 07:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Surface Detail wrote:Reality stops you plugging in negative values, you dope!

Exactly, you dope! That's why I gave you that hint. Can you reach an epiphany concerning the domain of wavelength values and reality ... or are you still the same hopelessly brain-dead moron you've always been.


Surface Detail wrote:Do you really think that Planck's function can give a meaningful radiance for a negative temperature or wavelength?

Not at all, dumbass. You apparently don't pick up on hints to quickly, even when they are expressly labeled as such.

Planck's can't give any meaningful value for any wavelengths that are not in the subject gas'domain. No function can render a meaningful result for an input value that is not in its domain.

The UK did you a disservice by not teaching you about "domain" and "range."


.


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
01-10-2016 16:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You cannot make the spectrum I posted earlier by "cutting out" parts of the domain.
01-10-2016 19:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
jwoodward48 wrote:You cannot make the spectrum I posted earlier by "cutting out" parts of the domain.

Your use of the words "cutting out parts of the domain" show that you don't know what the domain is.

Please keep trying. I'm pulling for you.


.


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
01-10-2016 19:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Reality stops you plugging in negative values, you dope!

Exactly, you dope! That's why I gave you that hint. Can you reach an epiphany concerning the domain of wavelength values and reality ... or are you still the same hopelessly brain-dead moron you've always been.


Surface Detail wrote:Do you really think that Planck's function can give a meaningful radiance for a negative temperature or wavelength?

Not at all, dumbass. You apparently don't pick up on hints to quickly, even when they are expressly labeled as such.

Planck's can't give any meaningful value for any wavelengths that are not in the subject gas'domain. No function can render a meaningful result for an input value that is not in its domain.

The UK did you a disservice by not teaching you about "domain" and "range."

So, how does one determine the domain of Planck's function for a particular gas?
01-10-2016 21:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:You cannot make the spectrum I posted earlier by "cutting out" parts of the domain.

Your use of the words "cutting out parts of the domain" show that you don't know what the domain is.

Please keep trying. I'm pulling for you.


.


For ****'s sake, I understand what a domain is! It's the set of meaningful inputs for a function. The domain of y=x^2 is all real numbers. The domain of y=sqrt(x) is all non-negative real numbers.

If you say that H2 can't emit radiation at 30 nm, so we don't consider this to be part of the domain of Planck's Law, then you are "cutting out" parts of the graph - but this would not affect the number of local maxima. If we define a local maximum to be either the standard definition (if the modified Planck function is continuous at that point) or when the next values in the domain to the negative and positive side both produce an output strictly less than the output of the considered point, then we can show that a function with one and only one local maximum within the open interval considered will continue to have at most one local maximum if we remove parts of that interval from consideration.

The graph that I posted has is continuous in the considered interval, and has multiple local maxima. This cannot be produced from a Planck spectrum by simply altering the domain.


"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!
01-10-2016 23:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I just can't believe that. You're claiming that O2 doesn't absorb light? Nonsense.

Ah, my mistake. Yes, O2 does, of course, emit radiation according to Planck's law and therefore must also absorb all the light that falls on it. That's why we can't see through it.


Like every other substance, O2 absorbs and emits light according to Planck's law.

Yes, that'll be why the atmosphere is opaque and we can't see anything.


?


The Parrot Killer
01-10-2016 23:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No, no, no! O2 does absorb light! Just not visible or IR light. You know UV rays? Ozone isn't the only absorber of UV light - O2 can also absorb ultraviolet light!

There are some wavelengths that O2 cannot absorb. It just will not absorb any of it - in its gaseous form! In its liquid or solid form, there is a particular phenomenon that occurs which allows multiple molecules to emit or absorb light at the same time, and with the same photon, IIRC. Gases can't do that (although very high-pressure gas or plasma might be able to do so).

Experimental verification: look at the sky. Does the oxygen obscure your vision, or can you see the Sun pretty clearly?


O2 also absorbs and emits infrared light. That energy level is much 'redder' than CO2, but it's there.


The Parrot Killer
01-10-2016 23:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I just can't believe that. You're claiming that O2 doesn't absorb light? Nonsense.

Ah, my mistake. Yes, O2 does, of course, emit radiation according to Planck's law and therefore must also absorb all the light that falls on it. That's why we can't see through it.


Like every other substance, O2 absorbs and emits light according to Planck's law.

Yes, that'll be why the atmosphere is opaque and we can't see anything.


?


God you are dumb.

A black-body is literally black, however the air made of the gasses we have been arguing about, those gasses are of course transparent.

Ergo the fact I can see at all proves your brand of pataphyisics which you base your objection to the greenhouse effect on idiotic,

How the **** do you manage to turn your computer on?
01-10-2016 23:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I just can't believe that. You're claiming that O2 doesn't absorb light? Nonsense.

Ah, my mistake. Yes, O2 does, of course, emit radiation according to Planck's law and therefore must also absorb all the light that falls on it. That's why we can't see through it.


Like every other substance, O2 absorbs and emits light according to Planck's law.

Yes, that'll be why the atmosphere is opaque and we can't see anything.


?



God you are dumb.

A black-body is literally black, however the air made of the gasses we have been arguing about, those gasses are of course transparent.

Ergo the fact I can see at all proves your brand of pataphyisics which you base your objection to the greenhouse effect on idiotic,

How the **** do you manage to turn your computer on?


That's an awfully bright black body up there in the sky shining down on us.

I have to use goggles to limit the brightness of a black body when I'm welding on it.


The Parrot Killer
01-10-2016 23:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, spot. A black body is not black. What you probably meant to say is that a black body has reflectivity and transmissivity equal to 0. Black bodies glow, and are thus not black.
01-10-2016 23:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No, spot. A black body is not black. What you probably meant to say is that a black body has reflectivity and transmissivity equal to 0. Black bodies glow, and are thus not black.


It would glow when heated, at air temperature it would be black. the radiation it emits would be to low frequency to see it would however radiate infra-red.
01-10-2016 23:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I just can't believe that. You're claiming that O2 doesn't absorb light? Nonsense.

Ah, my mistake. Yes, O2 does, of course, emit radiation according to Planck's law and therefore must also absorb all the light that falls on it. That's why we can't see through it.


Like every other substance, O2 absorbs and emits light according to Planck's law.

Yes, that'll be why the atmosphere is opaque and we can't see anything.


?



God you are dumb.

A black-body is literally black, however the air made of the gasses we have been arguing about, those gasses are of course transparent.

Ergo the fact I can see at all proves your brand of pataphyisics which you base your objection to the greenhouse effect on idiotic,

How the **** do you manage to turn your computer on?


That's an awfully bright black body up there in the sky shining down on us.

I have to use goggles to limit the brightness of a black body when I'm welding on it.


Its not an ideal black body. Even if it were its a bit hotter then the atmosphere.
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate What is heat?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
Heat7119-04-2019 23:53
Ocean heat sources419-04-2019 23:21
▲ 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