What is heat?

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand your arguments because they are Protean, and change shape to best support your conspiracy theory.

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.

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.

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.

.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonstrate it. How does removing certain parts of a graph induce multiple local maxima when there was previously only one?

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.

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.


.

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.


.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Surface Detail wrote: I understand what a domain is.

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.

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.

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.

Surface Detail wrote:You're the one who keeps wittering on about....

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.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I've already proven that DOMAINS cannot create a peak out of thin air. I could do it again if you like.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

jwoodward48 wrote:
If the argument is reduced to "no, YOU have the burden of proof", then it's pretty much over.