wikipedia accuracy

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.

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?

keepit wrote:
Someone

keepit wrote:
did a study on the accuracy of wiki

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

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

keepit wrote:
I'm impressed.

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?

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?

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

keepit wrote:Someone did a study on the accuracy of wiki and found wiki to be equally accurate compared to Encyclopedia Britannica.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

.

spot wrote: If someone asked me about the laws of thermodynamics I would trust Wikipedia.

spot wrote: 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?

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?

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.


.

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.

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.

spot wrote: You wont give references though.

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

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

spot wrote: Carl Sagan [quote deleted]

spot wrote: Steven Hawking [quote deleted]

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

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.

spot wrote: And you don't answer questions.

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?

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.


.

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.

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

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

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.

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

spot wrote:
Are you saying they don't understand basic physics?

spot wrote:
You have an insight that they neglect

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

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.

spot wrote:
And you don't answer questions.

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?

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.

keepit wrote:
ITN,
That's impressive and thank you.

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

keepit wrote:
Anyway, a couple of things i noticed as i brushed through (i'll look more later).
Emissivity is a constant variable

keepit wrote:
(parameter), not really a constant.

keepit wrote:
I guess it's a matter of semantics (again).

keepit wrote:
It varies depending on the wavelength when you're talking about something other than a black body.

keepit wrote:
Read Wiki on the subject of emissivity of a planetary body.

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.

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.

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.

spot wrote:
You can reference yourself

spot wrote:
But you redefine terms

spot wrote:
and construct a science fiction universe out of them so I don't know who you are trying to kid.

spot wrote:
And you don't answer questions.

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?

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.

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.


.

spot wrote:
No you haven't fooled me I know what a black body is, I was semi awake in secondary school.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

tmiddles wrote:TWELVE REFERENCES ON BASIC PHYSICS

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.

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.

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

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. Summarily dismissed.

tmiddles wrote:Where? Should I go to wikipedia for that?

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

Where???