cancel2 2022
Canceled
I have 2:1 (Hons) in pure chemistry.
Most of the past ten thousand years hotter than today.
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
I have 2:1 (Hons) in pure chemistry.
moon
Satire for Sanity
The dumbass calls science- " A set of falsifiable theories " yet he avoids describing what this is;
He is, in fact, a dumbass, attention-seeking contrary .
However, he appears to know that it ain't a magnet.
Haw, haw..................................haw.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Haw, haw, haw, haw, haw.................................haw, haw...............................haw.
And you've been posing as educated.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
The dumbass calls science- " A set of falsifiable theories " yet he avoids describing what this is;
He is, in fact, a dumbass, attention-seeking contrary .
Exactly, That's just a bunch of bullshit.
Agreed.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Steve Milloy of Junk Science nails this airhead.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Deflection fallacy. Wien's law treats Stars as perfect Blackbodies.
Ignorance fallacy. See Planck's radiation law.
Stefan B says increases in temperature means stronger emissions. And Kirchoff's law says stronger emissions means greater absorptivity. What do you think greater absorptivity means?
Furthermore, what makes you think Heat flows through Space ... from one star to another?
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
No, it doesn't. First, there is no such thing as a perfect blackbody. This is a reference point only (denoting 100% emissivity). There are no perfect black bodies in existence. Second, Wien's law does not discuss amplitude at all. Irrelevance fallacy.
Irrelevance fallacy.
Correct.
WRONG. Emissions are NOT the same as emissivity. Redefinition fallacy.
The same as emissivity, NOT EMISSIONS.
No star heats any other star.
Into the Night
Verified User
Already have, dumbass. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
moon
Satire for Sanity
The Stone Age is where you belong, addlepate.
Haw, haw..............................haw.
Into the Night
Verified User
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Yes, it does. Stars are treated as perfect Blackbodies because they are a close approximation to a Blackbody.
And denotes the 100% absorptivity of a Blackbody.
Ignorance fallacy. Myopia fallacy. Planck's radiation describes the full spectrum emitted vs. temperature. Example below ...
Misquote fallacy. Word game fallacy. Stronger emissions is an example of emissivity.
Redefinition fallacy. Fear fallacy.
Word game fallacy. Fear fallacy. Ignorance fallacy. Yet, you had no problem with a hotter star heating a cooler star, or a star heating the Earth.
Stars heat other Stars by transmitting or transferring heat via photons. Heat does not flow through Space. The 2nd law of therm remains preserved.
What do you think 100% absorptivity means?
Why do you believe that Heat flows through all of Space?
Last edited:
moon
Satire for Sanity
Oh...clever. Grow up.
You can invent the wheel - and run yourself over.
Haw, haw............................haw.
Into the Night
Verified User
No star is a perfect blackbody. No body in space is a perfect blackbody.
No star is a perfect blackbody.
Fallacy fallacy. Mockery. Discard of logic.
No, it doesn't. Plank doesn't radiate. Wien's law doesn't describe any such thing either. Wien's law only calculates the peak frequency of radiance due to blackbody radiance. Wien's law states: Lmax = b/T where 'Lmax' is the wavelength in meters, 'b' is a natural constant, and 'T' is temperature in deg K. It does NOT calculate amplitude of radiance. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does that. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is radiance in square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant called emissivity, and 'T' is temperature in deg K. Plank does describe the emission curve by frequency, and how the curve moves up into the visible light range with increasing temperature (why heating a metal for example first glows dull red, then bright red, than orange, than yellow, than white, as it's temperature increases. This glow is the same for all substances at the same temperature.
Earth is a reflective body. It does not generate it's own radiance. It absorbs heat from the Sun via radiant heat, and loses ALL of that energy to space. Like a stone near a fire, Earth is heated. Earth enjoys a warm and pleasant environment just right to be suitable for life. The stone does not heat itself.
Inversion fallacy. This is what YOU are doing.Example below ...
Misquote fallacy.
Inversion fallacy. This is what YOU are doing.
WRONG. Emissivity is NOT emissions. Redefinition fallacy.
Inversion fallacies. Mockery. Discard of logic. No star is heated by any other star. You are ignoring the inverse square law now.
No star heats any other star.
Yes it does. Earth is heated by the Sun in this way.
Yet you deny it by using a colder gas to heat the surface.
Emissivity is NOT emissions. Redefinition fallacy.
Throughout the observable universe, the laws of thermodynamics apply. Laws that you deny and discard.
Illiteracy. Blackbody is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized. Star is not a proper noun. it is not capitalized. Space is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized. Heat is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Disagree with much.
Why do you believe that Heat flows through all of outer space?
What do you think 100% absorptivity means?
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
cancel2 2022
Canceled
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Only a max plank would misspell Max Planck!
