What is heat?

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?

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Planck's Law will never predict multiple local maxima. Correct?

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.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Planck's Law will never predict multiple local maxima. Correct?

Why would it disallow it?

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.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Shows how much YOU know. Vibration IS kinetic.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I just can't believe that. You're claiming that O2 doesn't absorb light? Nonsense.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Or maybe we can't understand your posts because they make no sense.

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.

Surface Detail wrote: We know what the domain of a function is.

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

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.

Surface Detail wrote:Reality stops you plugging in negative values, you dope!

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

jwoodward48 wrote:You cannot make the spectrum I posted earlier by "cutting out" parts of the domain.

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."

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.


.

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.

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?

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.

?

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?

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.

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.