Remember me
▼ Content

wikipedia accuracy



Page 1 of 3123>
wikipedia accuracy28-01-2020 07:51
keepit
★★★★☆
(1218)
Someone did a study on the accuracy of wiki and found wiki to be equally accurate compared to Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, apparently nowadays you have to be registered to be allowed to edit articles or information presented.
I'm impressed.
Edited on 28-01-2020 07:51
28-01-2020 11:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11751)
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.
28-01-2020 12:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.


How does one find out what the theory actually is?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-01-2020 13:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.


How does one find out what the theory actually is?


Yeah ITN, where?

I'm genuinely curious where you would tell someone to go find the theories of physics.
Edited on 28-01-2020 13:37
28-01-2020 16:28
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(420)
keepit wrote:
Someone

Who? You?

keepit wrote:
did a study on the accuracy of wiki

How was this "study" conducted?

keepit wrote:
and found wiki to be equally accurate compared to Encyclopedia Britannica.

Malarkey. Even if it were the case, it would be completely irrelevant.

keepit wrote:
Also, apparently nowadays you have to be registered to be allowed to edit articles or information presented.

So?

keepit wrote:
I'm impressed.

I'm not.

I do not accept Wikipedia as a source of anything. It is too often misleading, incomplete, or just flat out wrong.
Edited on 28-01-2020 16:29
28-01-2020 16:31
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(420)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.


How does one find out what the theory actually is?

Read it for yourself. It's available for all to see.
28-01-2020 16:38
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(420)
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.


How does one find out what the theory actually is?


Yeah ITN, where?

Not what was asked. You've truly lost all comprehension of the English language, haven't you?

tmiddles wrote:
I'm genuinely curious where you would tell someone to go find the theories of physics.

I don't believe you.
28-01-2020 16:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6251)
keepit wrote:Someone did a study on the accuracy of wiki and found wiki to be equally accurate compared to Encyclopedia Britannica.

Someone did a study and found that Global Warming is worse than previously feared! ... and that we need stiff carbon taxes before it's too late!

For every study there is an equal study showing the exact opposite ... and countless others in between and out in left field.



keepit wrote: Also, apparently nowadays you have to be registered to be allowed to edit articles or information presented. I'm impressed.

It has always been that way as far as I know. I am one of those registered people but I stopped trying to contribute about fifteen years ago because the Wikipedia staff is a group of hard-line Marxists who undo contributions that do not toe the political party line. Even if those contributions are absolutely correct, mathematically and scientifically, and are applied to fix/correct blatant errors and to bring Wikipedia in line with its stated policies, the Wikipedia staff nonetheless lock down all wikis that are deemed important to leftist politics after carefully wording them to maximum propaganda effect, counter to their stated policies.

Show me someone who trusts and defends Wikipedia and I'll show you a dishonest leftist.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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 28-01-2020 16:51
28-01-2020 17:10
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(420)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:Someone did a study on the accuracy of wiki and found wiki to be equally accurate compared to Encyclopedia Britannica.

Someone did a study and found that Global Warming is worse than previously feared! ... and that we need stiff carbon taxes before it's too late!

For every study there is an equal study showing the exact opposite ... and countless others in between and out in left field.

Multiple studies have shown us that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else. Even mathematics is no match for Global Warming and his Climate Denier allies!!! WE'RE DOOMED!!!!!! REPENT OF YOUR CARBON SINS!!!!! REPENT NOW, AND BE SAVED FROM GLOBAL WARMING... We MUST support Climate at Climate Ground Zero before it is too late, even though it already IS too late, but we can still make a difference if we simply act now!!! At least just wave your hands in the air or something...
28-01-2020 20:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.


How does one find out what the theory actually is?


So If I want to know how the laws of thermodynamics relate to atmospheric physics where do I find that out?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-01-2020 20:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
gfm7175 wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.


How does one find out what the theory actually is?

Read it for yourself. It's available for all to see.


Where exactly?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-01-2020 20:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6251)
spot wrote:How does one find out what the theory actually is?

Unless you are the boy in the plastic bubble, you have to be brain dead to ask this question.


Wait, this is spot after all ... the guy who quotes me in his signature believing he is somehow embarrassing me. Too funny.

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
28-01-2020 20:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:How does one find out what the theory actually is?

Unless you are the boy in the plastic bubble, you have to be brain dead to ask this question.


Wait, this is spot after all ... the guy who quotes me in his signature believing he is somehow embarrassing me. Too funny.

.


If someone asked me about the laws of thermodynamics I would trust Wikipedia. How did you originally tell that it was wrong about such a basic thing. Surly you can just tell me rather then act like a toddler trying to hurt my feelings?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-01-2020 21:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6251)
spot wrote: If someone asked me about the laws of thermodynamics I would trust Wikipedia.

Which explains why you are utterly brain-dead on the subject.

spot wrote: How did you originally tell that it was wrong about such a basic thing.

I read it.


Surly you can just tell me rather then act like a toddler trying to hurt my feelings?

I *have* told you. I know the material. I learned it. I takes no effort on my part to spot any of the many errors plaguing Wikipedia.

Of course *you* don't know the material and cannot discern any of the errors contained therein. You therefore regurgitate Wikipedia's errors verbatim.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
28-01-2020 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11751)
spot wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.


How does one find out what the theory actually is?

Read it for yourself. It's available for all to see.


Where exactly?


I'll make it easy for you:

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) + U
Where: 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t)
Where: 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time.

Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4
Where: 'r' is in watts per square meter, 't' is temperature in deg K, 'e' is a measured constant known as emissivity, which is how well light is emitted at all frequencies from a surface, as compared to an ideal emitter (an ideal black body), and an ideal reflector (an ideal white body), expressed as a percentage (value from 0 to 1, with 1 being the ideal black body at the same temperature), and 'C' is the value of 5.67 * 10^-8.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law can be derived from Planck's law by integrating over all frequencies of light.

Thus,
* It is not possible to create or destroy energy (1st law of thermodynamics). You can only change the energy of a system by putting work into it or extracting work from it. Work itself is a force applied to a mass over time. No gas or vapor is adding or extracting work from the Earth.
* It is not possible to reduce entropy in any system. Since a 'hot' region is a concentration of thermal energy, and a 'cold' region is a relative void of thermal energy, thermal energy will naturally dissipate until both regions are the same temperature. Heat always from from hot to cold, never the reverse. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere.
* It is not possible to reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. 'r' and 't' are proportional to each other, NEVER inversely proportional. 'C' is a natural constant. 'e' is a measured constant. There is frequency term anywhere in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ALL frequencies are considered.

You can find these equations in many places. One place happens to be here. The history of how these theories came to be is itself a fascinating study of history, for that shows how the theory was inspired, and how it was initially tested for falsifiability. These theories continue to survive tests designed to destroy them. It is this that makes them theories of science.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 21:34
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: If someone asked me about the laws of thermodynamics I would trust Wikipedia.

Which explains why you are utterly brain-dead on the subject.

spot wrote: How did you originally tell that it was wrong about such a basic thing.

I read it.


Surly you can just tell me rather then act like a toddler trying to hurt my feelings?

I *have* told you. I know the material. I learned it. I takes no effort on my part to spot any of the many errors plaguing Wikipedia.

Of course *you* don't know the material and cannot discern any of the errors contained therein. You therefore regurgitate Wikipedia's errors verbatim.


.


You wont give references though.

You think you are the only one capable of reading, why is what you claim at odds with people such as Brian Cox

There is 'absolute consensus' on climate change

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-37092490/cox-there-is-absolute-consensus-on-climate-change

Carl Sagan

The study of the global climate, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are fields that are poorly and grudgingly funded. In our ignorance, we continue to push and pull, to pollute the atmosphere and brighten the land, oblivious of the fact that the long-term consequences are largely unknown

https://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135

Steven Hawking

Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it's one we can prevent if we act now.

https://carbonliteracy.com/stephen-hawkings-outlook-on-climate-change/

I could of course quote physicists on this subject all day.


Are you saying they don't understand basic physics? You have an insight that they neglect that we could know if only we were as knowledgeable as you?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 28-01-2020 21:35
28-01-2020 21:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6251)
Into the Night wrote:
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) + U
Where: 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.


I believe you mean E(t) = E(t+1) + U

The initial amount of energy = the subsequent amount of energy + the amount of work performed.

I'm standing by to entertain any questions from anyone about how I was able to make such a statement without consulting any websites or books.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
28-01-2020 21:40
keepit
★★★★☆
(1218)
ITN,
That's impressive and thank you. From what authority did you get that information?
Anyway, a couple of things i noticed as i brushed through (i'll look more later).
Emissivity is a constant variable (parameter), not really a constant. I guess it's a matter of semantics (again). It varies depending on the wavelength when you're talking about something other than a black body. Read Wiki on the subject of emissivity of a planetary body.
Also, the first law. I personally don't get too hung up on conservation of energy. Because ... there is dark energy which is increasing in the universe at a humungus rate.
28-01-2020 21:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.


How does one find out what the theory actually is?

Read it for yourself. It's available for all to see.


Where exactly?


I'll make it easy for you:

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) + U
Where: 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t)
Where: 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time.

Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4
Where: 'r' is in watts per square meter, 't' is temperature in deg K, 'e' is a measured constant known as emissivity, which is how well light is emitted at all frequencies from a surface, as compared to an ideal emitter (an ideal black body), and an ideal reflector (an ideal white body), expressed as a percentage (value from 0 to 1, with 1 being the ideal black body at the same temperature), and 'C' is the value of 5.67 * 10^-8.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law can be derived from Planck's law by integrating over all frequencies of light.

Thus,
* It is not possible to create or destroy energy (1st law of thermodynamics). You can only change the energy of a system by putting work into it or extracting work from it. Work itself is a force applied to a mass over time. No gas or vapor is adding or extracting work from the Earth.
* It is not possible to reduce entropy in any system. Since a 'hot' region is a concentration of thermal energy, and a 'cold' region is a relative void of thermal energy, thermal energy will naturally dissipate until both regions are the same temperature. Heat always from from hot to cold, never the reverse. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere.
* It is not possible to reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. 'r' and 't' are proportional to each other, NEVER inversely proportional. 'C' is a natural constant. 'e' is a measured constant. There is frequency term anywhere in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ALL frequencies are considered.

You can find these equations in many places. One place happens to be here. The history of how these theories came to be is itself a fascinating study of history, for that shows how the theory was inspired, and how it was initially tested for falsifiability. These theories continue to survive tests designed to destroy them. It is this that makes them theories of science.


Your source is written by IBdaMann and contains this;

http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/15/black-body-science-plancks-law


Black Body: 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.


Which is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. (It does not only absorb radiation, but can also emit radiation. The name "black body" is given because it absorbs radiation in all frequencies, not because it only absorbs.

So either everything is one or nothing is one, You calibrate say tympanic thermometers with a "black body" https://www.welchallyn.com/en/products/categories/thermometry/oral-axillary-rectal-thermometers/9600-plus-calibration-tester.html

the emitting surface is not a ideal black body of course but it is designed to approach one and I assure you it is black as the ace. The earth is not, air definitely is not.

So we have to go with Wikipedia on this.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-01-2020 22:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6251)
spot wrote: You wont give references though.

I reference myself. I am available to answer questions.

spot wrote: You think you are the only one capable of reading,

Nope. I merely acknowledge that you have learning disabilities and I'm doing what I can to help you.

spot wrote:why is what you claim at odds with people such as Brian Cox

Brian Cox is a huge science denier. You will not find him engaging in any public debates on Global Warming or Greenhouse Effect because he knows he'll get his ass handed to him and that the University of Manchester will revoke his diploma.

spot wrote: Carl Sagan [quote deleted]

How did Carl Sagan unambiguously define the global climate?

spot wrote: Steven Hawking [quote deleted]

How did Steven Hawking unambiguously define Climate Change?

spot wrote:I could of course quote physicists on this subject all day.

Yes, I see that you are capable of quoting religio-political activists all day. What you are not able to do is to quote any physicist's unambiguous definition of Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect or global climate ... and then stick with that definition.


The Pope is just as much a religio-political activist as the Climate clergymen you mentioned.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
28-01-2020 22:14
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
You can reference yourself But you redefine terms and construct a science fiction universe out of them so I don't know who you are trying to kid. And you don't answer questions. Who did you talk to and what exactly did you ask when you were trying to put science on your gaming PC again? Remember that?
28-01-2020 22:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6251)
spot wrote: You can reference yourself But you redefine terms and construct a science fiction universe out of them so I don't know who you are trying to kid.

Well I certainly can't fool you, can I? You are much too smart for that.

spot wrote: And you don't answer questions.

I must have a funny way of not answering questions, seeing as how my avoidance of answers involves detailed answers.

spot wrote:Who did you talk to and what exactly did you ask when you were trying to put science on your gaming PC again? Remember that?

Refresh my memory.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
28-01-2020 22:35
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(420)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) + U
Where: 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.


I believe you mean E(t) = E(t+1) + U

The initial amount of energy = the subsequent amount of energy + the amount of work performed.

I'm standing by to entertain any questions from anyone about how I was able to make such a statement without consulting any websites or books.


.

How were you able to make such a statement?

WITHOUT websites or books, you say??!!
Oh my...

NO idea how you did that...


Well, ttyl... I'm going to get back to consulting websites and books for a couple of hours here so that I can drive my car back home at 5pm...
28-01-2020 22:36
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
No you haven't fooled me I know what a black body is, I was semi awake in secondary school.

I can't believe you forgot about trying to put science on your computer .A few months ago you were claiming it led to your road to Damascus moment with Climate alarmisim anyone who was bothered if what I said is true or not can go through our posts.

Now your saying it never happened?
28-01-2020 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11751)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: If someone asked me about the laws of thermodynamics I would trust Wikipedia.

Which explains why you are utterly brain-dead on the subject.

spot wrote: How did you originally tell that it was wrong about such a basic thing.

I read it.


Surly you can just tell me rather then act like a toddler trying to hurt my feelings?

I *have* told you. I know the material. I learned it. I takes no effort on my part to spot any of the many errors plaguing Wikipedia.

Of course *you* don't know the material and cannot discern any of the errors contained therein. You therefore regurgitate Wikipedia's errors verbatim.


.


You wont give references though.

He already has. RQAA. Wikipedia is not a valid reference. RFAF.
spot wrote:
You think you are the only one capable of reading, why is what you claim at odds with people such as Brian Cox

There is 'absolute consensus' on climate change

Consensus is not used in science. No one votes on a theory. No one blesses a theory. No government, no priests, no nothing.
spot wrote:
Carl Sagan

The study of the global climate, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are fields that are poorly and grudgingly funded. In our ignorance, we continue to push and pull, to pollute the atmosphere and brighten the land, oblivious of the fact that the long-term consequences are largely unknown

There is no such thing as a global climate. Define 'pollution'. Pascal's Wager fallacy.
spot wrote:
Steven Hawking

Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it's one we can prevent if we act now.


Define 'climate change'.
spot wrote:
I could of course quote physicists on this subject all day.

Yes you could. Science isn't people.
spot wrote:
Are you saying they don't understand basic physics?

In their own way, they are each denying physics in the name of their religion, yes.
spot wrote:
You have an insight that they neglect

Just given.
spot wrote:
that we could know if only we were as knowledgeable as you?

Science isn't credentials. It isn't a famous person. It does not use consensus. It does not have any voting bloc. It does not use Holy Priests to bless or sanctify a theory. It does not use supporting evidence.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 22:40
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(420)
spot wrote:
You can reference yourself But you redefine terms and construct a science fiction universe out of them so I don't know who you are trying to kid.

No, this is what YOU are doing.

spot wrote:
And you don't answer questions.

Yes he does. He's been answering your questions. I even answered one of your questions within this very thread alone. ITN was then super nice and even handed the information to you on a silver platter. I'm not sure what more you are looking for...

spot wrote:
Who did you talk to and what exactly did you ask when you were trying to put science on your gaming PC again? Remember that?

No idea what you're talking about here.
28-01-2020 22:43
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
gfm7175 wrote:
spot wrote:
You can reference yourself But you redefine terms and construct a science fiction universe out of them so I don't know who you are trying to kid.

No, this is what YOU are doing.

spot wrote:
And you don't answer questions.

Yes he does. He's been answering your questions. I even answered one of your questions within this very thread alone. ITN was then super nice and even handed the information to you on a silver platter. I'm not sure what more you are looking for...

spot wrote:
Who did you talk to and what exactly did you ask when you were trying to put science on your gaming PC again? Remember that?

No idea what you're talking about here.


Sorry if I was mean but A black body is not what IBDAMAN thinks it is.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-01-2020 22:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11751)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
That's impressive and thank you.

Certainly.
keepit wrote:
From what authority did you get that information?

The theories themselves. That's all I need.
keepit wrote:
Anyway, a couple of things i noticed as i brushed through (i'll look more later).
Emissivity is a constant variable

There is no such thing.
keepit wrote:
(parameter), not really a constant.

It is really a constant. It is what is called a measured constant.
keepit wrote:
I guess it's a matter of semantics (again).

No. It's actually a constant.
keepit wrote:
It varies depending on the wavelength when you're talking about something other than a black body.

No. There is no frequency term in emissivity.
keepit wrote:
Read Wiki on the subject of emissivity of a planetary body.

Discarded. You cannot use that reference.
keepit wrote:
Also, the first law. I personally don't get too hung up on conservation of energy. Because ... there is dark energy which is increasing in the universe at a humungus rate.

Define 'dark energy'. Is that like 'the Force'? Does the Dark Energy have cookies?


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 22:45
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
Into the Night wrote:

Science isn't credentials. It isn't a famous person. It does not use consensus. It does not have any voting bloc. It does not use Holy Priests to bless or sanctify a theory. It does not use supporting evidence.


Its not a load of invective either.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-01-2020 22:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11751)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.


How does one find out what the theory actually is?

Read it for yourself. It's available for all to see.


Where exactly?


I'll make it easy for you:

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) + U
Where: 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t)
Where: 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time.

Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4
Where: 'r' is in watts per square meter, 't' is temperature in deg K, 'e' is a measured constant known as emissivity, which is how well light is emitted at all frequencies from a surface, as compared to an ideal emitter (an ideal black body), and an ideal reflector (an ideal white body), expressed as a percentage (value from 0 to 1, with 1 being the ideal black body at the same temperature), and 'C' is the value of 5.67 * 10^-8.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law can be derived from Planck's law by integrating over all frequencies of light.

Thus,
* It is not possible to create or destroy energy (1st law of thermodynamics). You can only change the energy of a system by putting work into it or extracting work from it. Work itself is a force applied to a mass over time. No gas or vapor is adding or extracting work from the Earth.
* It is not possible to reduce entropy in any system. Since a 'hot' region is a concentration of thermal energy, and a 'cold' region is a relative void of thermal energy, thermal energy will naturally dissipate until both regions are the same temperature. Heat always from from hot to cold, never the reverse. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere.
* It is not possible to reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. 'r' and 't' are proportional to each other, NEVER inversely proportional. 'C' is a natural constant. 'e' is a measured constant. There is frequency term anywhere in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ALL frequencies are considered.

You can find these equations in many places. One place happens to be here. The history of how these theories came to be is itself a fascinating study of history, for that shows how the theory was inspired, and how it was initially tested for falsifiability. These theories continue to survive tests designed to destroy them. It is this that makes them theories of science.


Your source is written by IBdaMann and contains this;

http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/15/black-body-science-plancks-law


Black Body: 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.


Which is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. (It does not only absorb radiation, but can also emit radiation. The name "black body" is given because it absorbs radiation in all frequencies, not because it only absorbs.

So either everything is one or nothing is one, You calibrate say tympanic thermometers with a "black body" https://www.welchallyn.com/en/products/categories/thermometry/oral-axillary-rectal-thermometers/9600-plus-calibration-tester.html

the emitting surface is not a ideal black body of course but it is designed to approach one and I assure you it is black as the ace. The earth is not, air definitely is not.

So we have to go with Wikipedia on this.

You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. Summarily dismissed.

There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, or in emissivity. There is nothing magick about an ideal black body versus a 'grey' body emitting blackbody radiation.

Thermometers are not calibrated using blackbody radiation.

You cannot remove the emissivity term from the equation either.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 22:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11751)
spot wrote:
You can reference yourself
How gracious of you to allow that!

spot wrote:
But you redefine terms
Fallacy fallacy.
spot wrote:
and construct a science fiction universe out of them so I don't know who you are trying to kid.
You are denying science yet again. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
spot wrote:
And you don't answer questions.
Lie. RQAA
spot wrote:
Who did you talk to and what exactly did you ask when you were trying to put science on your gaming PC again? Remember that?

RDCF.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 22:53
spot
★★★★☆
(1317)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.


How does one find out what the theory actually is?

Read it for yourself. It's available for all to see.


Where exactly?


I'll make it easy for you:

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) + U
Where: 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t)
Where: 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time.

Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4
Where: 'r' is in watts per square meter, 't' is temperature in deg K, 'e' is a measured constant known as emissivity, which is how well light is emitted at all frequencies from a surface, as compared to an ideal emitter (an ideal black body), and an ideal reflector (an ideal white body), expressed as a percentage (value from 0 to 1, with 1 being the ideal black body at the same temperature), and 'C' is the value of 5.67 * 10^-8.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law can be derived from Planck's law by integrating over all frequencies of light.

Thus,
* It is not possible to create or destroy energy (1st law of thermodynamics). You can only change the energy of a system by putting work into it or extracting work from it. Work itself is a force applied to a mass over time. No gas or vapor is adding or extracting work from the Earth.
* It is not possible to reduce entropy in any system. Since a 'hot' region is a concentration of thermal energy, and a 'cold' region is a relative void of thermal energy, thermal energy will naturally dissipate until both regions are the same temperature. Heat always from from hot to cold, never the reverse. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere.
* It is not possible to reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. 'r' and 't' are proportional to each other, NEVER inversely proportional. 'C' is a natural constant. 'e' is a measured constant. There is frequency term anywhere in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ALL frequencies are considered.

You can find these equations in many places. One place happens to be here. The history of how these theories came to be is itself a fascinating study of history, for that shows how the theory was inspired, and how it was initially tested for falsifiability. These theories continue to survive tests designed to destroy them. It is this that makes them theories of science.


Your source is written by IBdaMann and contains this;

http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/15/black-body-science-plancks-law


Black Body: 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.


Which is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. (It does not only absorb radiation, but can also emit radiation. The name "black body" is given because it absorbs radiation in all frequencies, not because it only absorbs.

So either everything is one or nothing is one, You calibrate say tympanic thermometers with a "black body" https://www.welchallyn.com/en/products/categories/thermometry/oral-axillary-rectal-thermometers/9600-plus-calibration-tester.html

the emitting surface is not a ideal black body of course but it is designed to approach one and I assure you it is black as the ace. The earth is not, air definitely is not.

So we have to go with Wikipedia on this.

You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. Summarily dismissed.

There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, or in emissivity. There is nothing magick about an ideal black body versus a 'grey' body emitting blackbody radiation.

Thermometers are not calibrated using blackbody radiation.

You cannot remove the emissivity term from the equation either.


You are now contradicting your own source.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-01-2020 22:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11751)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) + U
Where: 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.


I believe you mean E(t) = E(t+1) + U

The initial amount of energy = the subsequent amount of energy + the amount of work performed.

I'm standing by to entertain any questions from anyone about how I was able to make such a statement without consulting any websites or books.


.


Thank you. Yes, it was a typo.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 22:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11751)
spot wrote:
No you haven't fooled me I know what a black body is, I was semi awake in secondary school.

You must have been asleep during that class.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 22:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11751)
spot wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
spot wrote:
You can reference yourself But you redefine terms and construct a science fiction universe out of them so I don't know who you are trying to kid.

No, this is what YOU are doing.

spot wrote:
And you don't answer questions.

Yes he does. He's been answering your questions. I even answered one of your questions within this very thread alone. ITN was then super nice and even handed the information to you on a silver platter. I'm not sure what more you are looking for...

spot wrote:
Who did you talk to and what exactly did you ask when you were trying to put science on your gaming PC again? Remember that?

No idea what you're talking about here.


Sorry if I was mean but A black body is not what IBDAMAN thinks it is.


Yes it is. You don't get to rewrite the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the units of emissivity, or redefine blackbody radiation or what an ideal black body is.

You are still trying to remove the emissivity constant from the equation.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11751)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Science isn't credentials. It isn't a famous person. It does not use consensus. It does not have any voting bloc. It does not use Holy Priests to bless or sanctify a theory. It does not use supporting evidence.


Its not a load of invective either.

Who said it was?


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11751)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. You cannot force someone to accept Wikipedia. The ONLY authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself.

Not the Britannica, not Wikipedia.


How does one find out what the theory actually is?

Read it for yourself. It's available for all to see.


Where exactly?


I'll make it easy for you:

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) + U
Where: 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t)
Where: 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time.

Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4
Where: 'r' is in watts per square meter, 't' is temperature in deg K, 'e' is a measured constant known as emissivity, which is how well light is emitted at all frequencies from a surface, as compared to an ideal emitter (an ideal black body), and an ideal reflector (an ideal white body), expressed as a percentage (value from 0 to 1, with 1 being the ideal black body at the same temperature), and 'C' is the value of 5.67 * 10^-8.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law can be derived from Planck's law by integrating over all frequencies of light.

Thus,
* It is not possible to create or destroy energy (1st law of thermodynamics). You can only change the energy of a system by putting work into it or extracting work from it. Work itself is a force applied to a mass over time. No gas or vapor is adding or extracting work from the Earth.
* It is not possible to reduce entropy in any system. Since a 'hot' region is a concentration of thermal energy, and a 'cold' region is a relative void of thermal energy, thermal energy will naturally dissipate until both regions are the same temperature. Heat always from from hot to cold, never the reverse. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere.
* It is not possible to reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. 'r' and 't' are proportional to each other, NEVER inversely proportional. 'C' is a natural constant. 'e' is a measured constant. There is frequency term anywhere in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ALL frequencies are considered.

You can find these equations in many places. One place happens to be here. The history of how these theories came to be is itself a fascinating study of history, for that shows how the theory was inspired, and how it was initially tested for falsifiability. These theories continue to survive tests designed to destroy them. It is this that makes them theories of science.


Your source is written by IBdaMann and contains this;

http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/15/black-body-science-plancks-law


Black Body: 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.


Which is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. (It does not only absorb radiation, but can also emit radiation. The name "black body" is given because it absorbs radiation in all frequencies, not because it only absorbs.

So either everything is one or nothing is one, You calibrate say tympanic thermometers with a "black body" https://www.welchallyn.com/en/products/categories/thermometry/oral-axillary-rectal-thermometers/9600-plus-calibration-tester.html

the emitting surface is not a ideal black body of course but it is designed to approach one and I assure you it is black as the ace. The earth is not, air definitely is not.

So we have to go with Wikipedia on this.

You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. Summarily dismissed.

There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, or in emissivity. There is nothing magick about an ideal black body versus a 'grey' body emitting blackbody radiation.

Thermometers are not calibrated using blackbody radiation.

You cannot remove the emissivity term from the equation either.


You are now contradicting your own source.

I am not contradicting anything.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2020 23:23
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(420)
spot wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
spot wrote:
You can reference yourself But you redefine terms and construct a science fiction universe out of them so I don't know who you are trying to kid.

No, this is what YOU are doing.

spot wrote:
And you don't answer questions.

Yes he does. He's been answering your questions. I even answered one of your questions within this very thread alone. ITN was then super nice and even handed the information to you on a silver platter. I'm not sure what more you are looking for...

spot wrote:
Who did you talk to and what exactly did you ask when you were trying to put science on your gaming PC again? Remember that?

No idea what you're talking about here.


Sorry if I was mean but A black body is not what IBDAMAN thinks it is.

No, he's correct about what a black body is.
29-01-2020 04:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
gfm7175 wrote:
spot wrote:
How does one find out what the theory actually is?

Read it for yourself. It's available for all to see.

Where? Should I go to wikipedia for that?

One of these 12 references maybe?:
tmiddles wrote:TWELVE REFERENCES ON BASIC PHYSICS

Where?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I'm genuinely curious where (ITN) would tell someone to go find the theories of physics.
I don't believe you.
As I'm convinced there is no source ITN would ever approve of I would be nothing less than amazed. But I'm asking you too gfm. Where would you go as a reference for basic theories of physics?

We've covered that it's NOT wikipedia.

IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:How does one find out what the theory actually is?

Unless you are the boy in the plastic bubble, you have to be brain dead to ask this question.
You deny that many people are duped into trusting Wikipedia? Isn't that the subject of many a post by you? So WHERE should the go INSTEAD! Help them escape the evil clutches of wiki.

Where???

Into the Night wrote:
I'll make it easy for you:
1st law
FALSE AUTHORITY FALLACY

ITN is not an identifiable source for anything. Neither am I.

This is why you claim Wikipedia is not trustworthy. The only link you provide is to your own website politiplex. That is beyond suspicious.

You didn't learn the laws from yourself so I ask again. Where ITN?

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. Summarily dismissed.
This implies that there could be a better reference doesn't it? What?
29-01-2020 04:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6251)
tmiddles wrote:Where? Should I go to wikipedia for that?

Have you asked the librarian for a good reference?

tmiddles wrote:So WHERE should the go INSTEAD! Help them escape the evil clutches of wiki.

Where???

Get out from behind your computer, visit your library and have this conversation with the librarian. While you're at it,take a course at a community college.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate wikipedia accuracy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Accuracy of climate model predictions: links211-05-2011 23:28
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact