Remember me
▼ Content

What is heat?



Page 3 of 5<12345>
02-10-2016 02:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The Planck distribution cannot be changed into all observed spectra by removing numbers from the domain. That will preserve the only-one-local-maximum property of the Planck distributions, and several observed spectra have multiple local maxima.
02-10-2016 03:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote:The Planck distribution cannot be changed into all observed spectra by removing numbers from the domain. That will preserve the only-one-local-maximum property of the Planck distributions, and several observed spectra have multiple local maxima.

Your misunderstanding has gotten worse.

Your need for a "greenhouse effect" miracle is strong. Might I suggest just getting a hug instead? They're much better, and they're actually real.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
02-10-2016 03:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Maybe I misunderstand your arguments because they are Protean, and change shape to best support your conspiracy theory.
02-10-2016 04:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand your arguments because they are Protean, and change shape to best support your conspiracy theory.

It has not changed.

Yours keeps changing whenever you see that you've run into a new error.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
02-10-2016 21:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
spot wrote:
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.


Steel is grey, not black. Yet it glows a visible red when heated. What's wrong?


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2016 21:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
spot wrote:
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.


There is no such thing as an ideal black body. If you can find one, you'll be famous!


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2016 21:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand your arguments because they are Protean, and change shape to best support your conspiracy theory.

It has not changed.

Yours keeps changing whenever you see that you've run into a new error.

.


Hahaha! You're the funniest. No, when I see that I am wrong about something, I shouldn't change my argument at all, right? Just insist that I am right.

Only you could call the ability to learn from mistakes into a negative trait.


"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!
02-10-2016 21:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Planck distribution cannot be changed into all observed spectra by removing numbers from the domain. That will preserve the only-one-local-maximum property of the Planck distributions, and several observed spectra have multiple local maxima.


Actually it can appear to. It all comes down to your not understanding domain.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2016 21:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Demonstrate it. How does removing certain parts of a graph induce multiple local maxima when there was previously only one?
02-10-2016 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonstrate it. How does removing certain parts of a graph induce multiple local maxima when there was previously only one?


I am leaving this one to IBDaMann since he brought up the subject of domains. I understand where he is going with it. Rest assured, you can get a graph with peaks and valleys in it from a continuous ideal curve. I wouldn't want to spoil your fun learning it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-10-2016 21:46
02-10-2016 22:38
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But what would you do to the graph to "get" the peaks-and-valleys graph? Certainly more than "cut some values out of the domain".
Edited on 02-10-2016 22:38
03-10-2016 13:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote:Hahaha! You're the funniest. No, when I see that I am wrong about something, I shouldn't change my argument at all, right? Just insist that I am right.

Only you could call the ability to learn from mistakes into a negative trait.

Dishonestly playing the victim again.

You were the one who started the "you keep changing" meme. It turns out that you fold like an accordion when it is appropriately directed at you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
03-10-2016 14:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Hahaha! You're the funniest. No, when I see that I am wrong about something, I shouldn't change my argument at all, right? Just insist that I am right.

Only you could call the ability to learn from mistakes into a negative trait.

Dishonestly playing the victim again.

You were the one who started the "you keep changing" meme. It turns out that you fold like an accordion when it is appropriately directed at you.


.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how one would determine the "domain" of Planck's function for a particular gas. You see, I think you're just talking drivel, but perhaps you do have an alternative (to quantum physics) explanation for the emission spectra of gases. It so, I'd love to hear it.
03-10-2016 14:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Hahaha! You're the funniest. No, when I see that I am wrong about something, I shouldn't change my argument at all, right? Just insist that I am right.

Only you could call the ability to learn from mistakes into a negative trait.

Dishonestly playing the victim again.

You were the one who started the "you keep changing" meme. It turns out that you fold like an accordion when it is appropriately directed at you.


.


Oh, you'd never admit that you were ever wrong about anything. You're the one who brought up changing WHEN MISTAKES ARE MADE. I said that you were changing WHEN A PARTICULAR LIE WAS UNPRODUCTIVE.


"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!
03-10-2016 15:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
I know that there is no such thing as an Ideal black body. But we can get close black body sources are used in labs to calibrate say temporal thermometers used in medicine what colour do you think the source is?

Here is a model that I have used, I assure you if its glowing there is something wrong.

Anyway we seem to have gone off on a tangent the point was that air is defiantly not a black-body. and only an idiot would say that it was.
Edited on 03-10-2016 15:27
03-10-2016 21:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes, since black bodies have transmissivities of 0. But apparently, with the magic power of DOMAINS, any emission can be derived from a Planck distribution, which somehow means that homeopathy works.
03-10-2016 21:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, since black bodies have transmissivities of 0. But apparently, with the magic power of DOMAINS, any emission can be derived from a Planck distribution, which somehow means that homeopathy works.


Nothing magick about domains. You just have to understand them for what they are and how they are combined.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2016 21:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, since black bodies have transmissivities of 0. But apparently, with the magic power of DOMAINS, any emission can be derived from a Planck distribution, which somehow means that homeopathy works.


Nothing magick about domains. You just have to understand them for what they are and how they are combined.

Perhaps you could explain what they are and how they are combined, just so we know you're not talking crap. IBdaMann seems reluctant to do so, but since you're also an expert, I'm sure you'll be happy to oblige.
03-10-2016 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, since black bodies have transmissivities of 0. But apparently, with the magic power of DOMAINS, any emission can be derived from a Planck distribution, which somehow means that homeopathy works.


Nothing magick about domains. You just have to understand them for what they are and how they are combined.

Perhaps you could explain what they are and how they are combined, just so we know you're not talking crap. IBdaMann seems reluctant to do so, but since you're also an expert, I'm sure you'll be happy to oblige.


Like I said. IBDaMann brought it up. I will let him finish it. Either that or you can go read a math book (try a good calculus book).


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 01:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into, I've gone through Calc I, II, and III, as well as Linear Algebra. You can't say "well go learn math". I understand what a domain is. I am disputing the MAGIC POWER OF DOMAINS that can turn a single-peaked graph into a multi-peaked graph.
04-10-2016 01:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, I've gone through Calc I, II, and III, as well as Linear Algebra. You can't say "well go learn math". I understand what a domain is. I am disputing the MAGIC POWER OF DOMAINS that can turn a single-peaked graph into a multi-peaked graph.


Then you don't understand what a domain is, despite your claim. You have only a partial understanding of it at best.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 02:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, I've gone through Calc I, II, and III, as well as Linear Algebra. You can't say "well go learn math". I understand what a domain is. I am disputing the MAGIC POWER OF DOMAINS that can turn a single-peaked graph into a multi-peaked graph.


Then you don't understand what a domain is, despite your claim. You have only a partial understanding of it at best.

You're such a bullshitter, ITN. Explain how a domain can be used to determine the radiative emission from a gas or admit you're talking crap.
04-10-2016 02:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
Surface Detail wrote: I understand what a domain is.

Apparently you don't and I'm calling bulslhit on your claim.

Btw, if you don't understand the term "domain" or if your religion-induced cognitive dissonance is forcing you to play stupid, it doesn't matter, they both look the same.

...and you've resorted to flagrant EVASION as sort of a public announcement that you have tipped your king.

You have no business pretending to discuss science when you need to learn what a domain is.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
04-10-2016 02:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: I understand what a domain is.

Apparently you don't and I'm calling bulslhit on your claim.

Btw, if you don't understand the term "domain" or if your religion-induced cognitive dissonance is forcing you to play stupid, it doesn't matter, they both look the same.

...and you've resorted to flagrant EVASION as sort of a public announcement that you have tipped your king.

You have no business pretending to discuss science when you need to learn what a domain is.

Bullshit. I've already asked you twice. Explain how a domain can be used to determine the radiative emission from a gas or admit you're talking crap.
04-10-2016 02:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
Surface Detail wrote:Bullshit. I've already asked you twice. Explain how a domain can be used to determine the radiative emission from a gas or admit you're talking crap.

Your stupid question doesn't even make sense. You're just DESPERATE to change the subject.

Refresher: You are on tap to provide an example of a gas whose E at some temperature for some wavelength in its domain is measured at some value other than what Planck's says.

This is at least the third time.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
Edited on 04-10-2016 02:34
04-10-2016 02:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Bullshit. I've already asked you twice. Explain how a domain can be used to determine the radiative emission from a gas or admit you're talking crap.

Your stupid question doesn't even make sense. You're just DESPERATE to change the subject.

Refresher: You are on tap to provide an example of a gas whose E at some temperature for some wavelength in its domain is measured at some value other than what Planck's says.

This is at least the third time.

You're the one who keeps wittering on about how the emission spectrum of a gas depends on its domain. If you had the faintest idea what you're talking about, you'd explain what you mean. You obviously don't. And that's because you're talking total bollocks.
04-10-2016 02:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I've already proven that DOMAINS cannot create a peak out of thin air. I could do it again if you like.
04-10-2016 02:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
Surface Detail wrote:You're the one who keeps wittering on about....

EVASION ignored.

4th Time: You are on tap to provide an example of a gas whose E at some temperature for some wavelength in its domain is measured at some value other than what Planck's says.

You started all this by insisting gases don't radiate per Planck's.

You're the one EVADING by insisting you don't understand what a gas' emission/wavelength domain is.

Either cough up an example or admit you don't know of a single example of a gas not radiating per Planck's.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
04-10-2016 03:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:You're the one who keeps wittering on about....

EVASION ignored.

4th Time: You are on tap to provide an example of a gas whose E at some temperature for some wavelength in its domain is measured at some value other than what Planck's says.

You started all this by insisting gases don't radiate per Planck's.

You're the one EVADING by insisting you don't understand what a gas' emission/wavelength domain is.

Either cough up an example or admit you don't know of a single example of a gas not radiating per Planck's.

No gas radiates in accordance with Planck's law. The idea is just preposterous. Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. Gases radiate as individual molecules in accordance with the laws of quantum physics.

You're the one who's proposing the novel theories. Can you find a single example of a gas that does radiate in accordance with Planck's law?

You're still refusing to give any explanation of your domain theory, I see. Still EVADING.
04-10-2016 03:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Bullshit. I've already asked you twice. Explain how a domain can be used to determine the radiative emission from a gas or admit you're talking crap.

Your stupid question doesn't even make sense. You're just DESPERATE to change the subject.

Refresher: You are on tap to provide an example of a gas whose E at some temperature for some wavelength in its domain is measured at some value other than what Planck's says.

This is at least the third time.

You're the one who keeps wittering on about how the emission spectrum of a gas depends on its domain. If you had the faintest idea what you're talking about, you'd explain what you mean. You obviously don't. And that's because you're talking total bollocks.


He just explained it to you in the form of a question. He has asked that question repeatedly. You have so far refused to answer it. This is YOUR problem. Learn what a domain is and how they combine.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I've already proven that DOMAINS cannot create a peak out of thin air. I could do it again if you like.


No, you haven't.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:You're the one who keeps wittering on about....

EVASION ignored.

4th Time: You are on tap to provide an example of a gas whose E at some temperature for some wavelength in its domain is measured at some value other than what Planck's says.

You started all this by insisting gases don't radiate per Planck's.

You're the one EVADING by insisting you don't understand what a gas' emission/wavelength domain is.

Either cough up an example or admit you don't know of a single example of a gas not radiating per Planck's.

No gas radiates in accordance with Planck's law. The idea is just preposterous. Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. Gases radiate as individual molecules in accordance with the laws of quantum physics.

You're the one who's proposing the novel theories. Can you find a single example of a gas that does radiate in accordance with Planck's law?

You're still refusing to give any explanation of your domain theory, I see. Still EVADING.


He asked you yet AGAIN. You evaded yet AGAIN. All gases radiate according to Planck's law. The law applies everywhere, not just black bodies. You are still having problems with domains.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Bullshit. I've already asked you twice. Explain how a domain can be used to determine the radiative emission from a gas or admit you're talking crap.

Your stupid question doesn't even make sense. You're just DESPERATE to change the subject.

Refresher: You are on tap to provide an example of a gas whose E at some temperature for some wavelength in its domain is measured at some value other than what Planck's says.

This is at least the third time.

You're the one who keeps wittering on about how the emission spectrum of a gas depends on its domain. If you had the faintest idea what you're talking about, you'd explain what you mean. You obviously don't. And that's because you're talking total bollocks.


He just explained it to you in the form of a question. He has asked that question repeatedly. You have so far refused to answer it. This is YOUR problem. Learn what a domain is and how they combine.

Don't talk daft. He and you refuse to explain what you mean because you're talking crap. People who know what they're talking about are happy to explain what they mean. Bullshitters like you and IBdaMoron just abuse and evade.

Explain: what do you mean by a domain, and what does this have to do with the emission of radiation from gases?
04-10-2016 03:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:You're the one who keeps wittering on about....

EVASION ignored.

4th Time: You are on tap to provide an example of a gas whose E at some temperature for some wavelength in its domain is measured at some value other than what Planck's says.

You started all this by insisting gases don't radiate per Planck's.

You're the one EVADING by insisting you don't understand what a gas' emission/wavelength domain is.

Either cough up an example or admit you don't know of a single example of a gas not radiating per Planck's.

No gas radiates in accordance with Planck's law. The idea is just preposterous. Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. Gases radiate as individual molecules in accordance with the laws of quantum physics.

You're the one who's proposing the novel theories. Can you find a single example of a gas that does radiate in accordance with Planck's law?

You're still refusing to give any explanation of your domain theory, I see. Still EVADING.


He asked you yet AGAIN. You evaded yet AGAIN. All gases radiate according to Planck's law. The law applies everywhere, not just black bodies. You are still having problems with domains.

They demonstrably do not radiate according to Planck's law. Gases have line spectra, not black body spectra. This is totally obvious to anyone who passes the light from a hot gas through a prism. You're talking crap.
04-10-2016 03:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:You're the one who keeps wittering on about....

EVASION ignored.

4th Time: You are on tap to provide an example of a gas whose E at some temperature for some wavelength in its domain is measured at some value other than what Planck's says.

You started all this by insisting gases don't radiate per Planck's.

You're the one EVADING by insisting you don't understand what a gas' emission/wavelength domain is.

Either cough up an example or admit you don't know of a single example of a gas not radiating per Planck's.

No gas radiates in accordance with Planck's law. The idea is just preposterous. Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. Gases radiate as individual molecules in accordance with the laws of quantum physics.

You're the one who's proposing the novel theories. Can you find a single example of a gas that does radiate in accordance with Planck's law?

You're still refusing to give any explanation of your domain theory, I see. Still EVADING.


He asked you yet AGAIN. You evaded yet AGAIN. All gases radiate according to Planck's law. The law applies everywhere, not just black bodies. You are still having problems with domains.

They demonstrably do not radiate according to Planck's law. Gases have line spectra, not black body spectra. This is totally obvious to anyone who passes the light from a hot gas through a prism. You're talking crap.


No, you are not understanding domains. You have yet to show me any gas that doesn't radiate according to Planck's law. Do you have one?


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:You're the one who keeps wittering on about....

EVASION ignored.

4th Time: You are on tap to provide an example of a gas whose E at some temperature for some wavelength in its domain is measured at some value other than what Planck's says.

You started all this by insisting gases don't radiate per Planck's.

You're the one EVADING by insisting you don't understand what a gas' emission/wavelength domain is.

Either cough up an example or admit you don't know of a single example of a gas not radiating per Planck's.

No gas radiates in accordance with Planck's law. The idea is just preposterous. Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. Gases radiate as individual molecules in accordance with the laws of quantum physics.

You're the one who's proposing the novel theories. Can you find a single example of a gas that does radiate in accordance with Planck's law?

You're still refusing to give any explanation of your domain theory, I see. Still EVADING.


He asked you yet AGAIN. You evaded yet AGAIN. All gases radiate according to Planck's law. The law applies everywhere, not just black bodies. You are still having problems with domains.

They demonstrably do not radiate according to Planck's law. Gases have line spectra, not black body spectra. This is totally obvious to anyone who passes the light from a hot gas through a prism. You're talking crap.


No, you are not understanding domains. You have yet to show me any gas that doesn't radiate according to Planck's law. Do you have one?

No gas radiates in accordance with Planck's law. Neon, for example, doesn't. Show me one that does!
04-10-2016 04:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If the argument is reduced to "no, YOU have the burden of proof", then it's pretty much over.
04-10-2016 04:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:You're the one who keeps wittering on about....

EVASION ignored.

4th Time: You are on tap to provide an example of a gas whose E at some temperature for some wavelength in its domain is measured at some value other than what Planck's says.

You started all this by insisting gases don't radiate per Planck's.

You're the one EVADING by insisting you don't understand what a gas' emission/wavelength domain is.

Either cough up an example or admit you don't know of a single example of a gas not radiating per Planck's.

No gas radiates in accordance with Planck's law. The idea is just preposterous. Planck's law applies to black bodies, not gases. Gases radiate as individual molecules in accordance with the laws of quantum physics.

You're the one who's proposing the novel theories. Can you find a single example of a gas that does radiate in accordance with Planck's law?

You're still refusing to give any explanation of your domain theory, I see. Still EVADING.


He asked you yet AGAIN. You evaded yet AGAIN. All gases radiate according to Planck's law. The law applies everywhere, not just black bodies. You are still having problems with domains.

They demonstrably do not radiate according to Planck's law. Gases have line spectra, not black body spectra. This is totally obvious to anyone who passes the light from a hot gas through a prism. You're talking crap.


No, you are not understanding domains. You have yet to show me any gas that doesn't radiate according to Planck's law. Do you have one?

No gas radiates in accordance with Planck's law. Neon, for example, doesn't. Show me one that does!


Sorry, dude. Neon does.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 04:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If the argument is reduced to "no, YOU have the burden of proof", then it's pretty much over.


Incorrect. The burden of proof is on the one trying to change what already is in place, such as what Surface is attempting to do.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 04:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Proving my point, Into. Only proving my point.
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate What is heat?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
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
▲ 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