Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Alas, you still don't understand science. Gravity has very little to do with thermal EM radiation.Sorry guy, but as I suspected, you don't have any idea even what the term, underlying mechanism means. All you are telling me is that energy transfers....I already knew that...nothing whatsoever there about the underlying mechanism of how or why energy transfers...unsurprising since at this juncture, the how and why remains a mystery to science just as the underlying mechanism of gravity remains a mystery...
To bad I can't write to you with crayons...the point was that there are lots of things to which we recognize but are still a long way from learning the underlying mechanism...given your intellectual limitiations, I thought the example of gravity would be easy for you to grasp...guess I was wrong.
C'mon don't give him idiotic ideas. He is confused and bitter enough the way it is.Hahahaha. I'm playing by SSDD rules here. It doesn't matter if T = 1000 or 3000K. Either one is warmer than the 4K detector. In fact it is warmer than an ambient temperature detector as well, so there is no problem with the SLoT because the photon knows the temperature of both the emitter and receiver 'cause it don't care nuttin' about time or distance. So there!
C'mon don't give him idiotic ideas. He is confused and bitter enough the way it is.Hahahaha. I'm playing by SSDD rules here. It doesn't matter if T = 1000 or 3000K. Either one is warmer than the 4K detector. In fact it is warmer than an ambient temperature detector as well, so there is no problem with the SLoT because the photon knows the temperature of both the emitter and receiver 'cause it don't care nuttin' about time or distance. So there!
Yes, thank heavens for the vacuum. If it weren't for the vacuum we would have nothing.Don't forget about the vacuum. The vacuum is very very important!
Hahahaha
All right, dazzling brilliance or a monster? Which one is sarcasm?Hahahaha. I'm afraid I already have. Bit of a Frankenstein's monster with that photon thing.
All right, dazzling brilliance or a monster? Which one is sarcasm?Hahahaha. I'm afraid I already have. Bit of a Frankenstein's monster with that photon thing.
Ah yes, you substitute vitriol for scientific understanding. Always changing the subject to gravity. Can't you find another way to digress. That is getting stale.To bad I can't write to you with crayons...the point was that there are lots of things to which we recognize but are still a long way from learning the underlying mechanism...given your intellectual limitiations, I thought the example of gravity would be easy for you to grasp...guess I was wrong.
Sorry. I'm trying to think of a funny retort, but there are too many to decide on.Ask Schrodinger's cat.
You lost bad. Resonant radio signal is something you made up that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Sheer boredom. That is so funny.Sorry guy, but I remember you never even being able to grasp the concept of a resonant radio signal....no surprise that you believe you won...I left the discussion with you out of sheer boredom...
You can't argue your way out of the fact that cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable. We're talking about thermal EM radiation here. The CMB didn't transmit "resonant radio frequencies".Sorry guy, it was a resonant radio frequency that Wilson's telescope received...not CMB...if you want to actually receive CMB you need an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.5K...like I said, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even grasp the concept of a resonant radio frequency and how that relates other types of energy.
0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe was about T=1013 K.
One month after the Big Bang the processes that convert the radiation field to a blackbody spectrum become slower than the expansion of the Universe, so the spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) preserves information back to this time. Temperature is T=3000 K, time is 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
The red-shift brings it down to 2.7 K.
Hahahaha. I'm playing by SSDD rules here. It doesn't matter if T = 1000 or 3000K. Either one is warmer than the 4K detector. In fact it is warmer than an ambient temperature detector as well, so there is no problem with the SLoT because the photon knows the temperature of both the emitter and receiver 'cause it don't care nuttin' about time or distance. So there!
Alas, you still don't understand science. Gravity has very little to do with thermal EM radiation.Sorry guy, but as I suspected, you don't have any idea even what the term, underlying mechanism means. All you are telling me is that energy transfers....I already knew that...nothing whatsoever there about the underlying mechanism of how or why energy transfers...unsurprising since at this juncture, the how and why remains a mystery to science just as the underlying mechanism of gravity remains a mystery...
To bad I can't write to you with crayons...the point was that there are lots of things to which we recognize but are still a long way from learning the underlying mechanism...given your intellectual limitiations, I thought the example of gravity would be easy for you to grasp...guess I was wrong.
Crayons wouldn't help. The writing would simply melt away being in the presence of your dazzling brilliance. For that matter, we have already been blinded simply by taking a peek at your brilliance. We are but dogs trying to comprehend the incomprehensible godlike wisdom you are trying to impart to us.
Hahahaha
Ah yes, you substitute vitriol for scientific understanding. Always changing the subject to gravity. Can't you find another way to digress. That is getting stale.To bad I can't write to you with crayons...the point was that there are lots of things to which we recognize but are still a long way from learning the underlying mechanism...given your intellectual limitiations, I thought the example of gravity would be easy for you to grasp...guess I was wrong.
The CMB is a continuum of frequencies. The detector is resonantly tuned to sample various frequencies of that continuum. The samples are compared to a black-body curve. Look at the site I gave ianC. Where do you think the dots on the graph came from?You lost bad. Resonant radio signal is something you made up that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Sheer boredom. That is so funny.Sorry guy, but I remember you never even being able to grasp the concept of a resonant radio signal....no surprise that you believe you won...I left the discussion with you out of sheer boredom...
So you have a bad memory in addition to not being very bright. Here is a better explanation than I could give you although it is probably way over your head as well..
The Cosmic Microwave Radiation (CMB) shows a blackbody spectrum of temperature 2.725 K
peaking at a wave length of about 0.2 cm beyond the far infrared spectrum. CMB is detected by radio-telescopes by resonance like radio antennas resonating with incoming radio waves thus generating a weak electrical signal which can be amplified into detection.
It would be difficult to detect CMB by thermal IR-imaging since the signal is very weak and thermal detection would require a detector at lower temperature than 2.725 K.
The concept of Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the cold atmosphere to the warm Earth surface plays a key role in CO2 alarmism. CMB is here presented as an ultimate form of DLR with the argument that a picture of CMB shows that DLR is real. If even the cold dark space is contributing to global warming, then global warming must be real, right?
Let us now scrutinize this argument in the setting of mathematical model of blackbody radiation studied in Computational Blackbody Radiation, in the case of a radio-telescope as CMB-detector. The model takes the form of set oscillators with damping (see here for some more details)
where the subindices indicate differentiation with respect to space x and time t, and
- Utt−Uxx−γUttt−h2Uxxt=f
where γ represents the constant in Planck's radiation law and h represents a smallest mesh size, connected to dissipative losses as outgoing radiation and internal heating, respectively.
- Utt−Uxx represents the oscillators in a wave model
- −γUttt is a dissipative term modeling outgoing radiation
- −h2Uxxt is a dissipative modeling internal heating
- f is incoming forcing/microwaves,
Microwaves are characterized by low frequency and long wave length (compared to visible and
infrared light) and in this case the dissipative loss of internal heating is small and is not detectable while the resonance can be detected after amplification just like a radio antenna is capable of detecting a weak radio wave by resonance followed by amplification.
Pictures of CMB are thus produced by an IR-camera in the form of a radio-telescope which works by resonance and not radiative heating. A CMB picture can therefore not be used as evidence that the weak glow of CMB acts as in a weak form of radiative heating named DLR or backradiation. This is because the CMB picture is not obtained from detection of radiative heating, but from resonance and amplification.
We conclude that a CMB picture is not any evidence of DLR, because no DLR is detected.
More bitter juvenile retorts. Is that all you got? Sad.Ah yes, you substitute vitriol for scientific understanding. Always changing the subject to gravity. Can't you find another way to digress. That is getting stale.To bad I can't write to you with crayons...the point was that there are lots of things to which we recognize but are still a long way from learning the underlying mechanism...given your intellectual limitiations, I thought the example of gravity would be easy for you to grasp...guess I was wrong.
Are you really that stupid? Never mind...you obviously are.
You lost bad. Resonant radio signal is something you made up that has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Sheer boredom. That is so funny.Sorry guy, but I remember you never even being able to grasp the concept of a resonant radio signal....no surprise that you believe you won...I left the discussion with you out of sheer boredom...
So you have a bad memory in addition to not being very bright. Here is a better explanation than I could give you although it is probably way over your head as well..
The Cosmic Microwave Radiation (CMB) shows a blackbody spectrum of temperature 2.725 K
peaking at a wave length of about 0.2 cm beyond the far infrared spectrum. CMB is detected by radio-telescopes by resonance like radio antennas resonating with incoming radio waves thus generating a weak electrical signal which can be amplified into detection.
It would be difficult to detect CMB by thermal IR-imaging since the signal is very weak and thermal detection would require a detector at lower temperature than 2.725 K.
The concept of Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the cold atmosphere to the warm Earth surface plays a key role in CO2 alarmism. CMB is here presented as an ultimate form of DLR with the argument that a picture of CMB shows that DLR is real. If even the cold dark space is contributing to global warming, then global warming must be real, right?
Let us now scrutinize this argument in the setting of mathematical model of blackbody radiation studied in Computational Blackbody Radiation, in the case of a radio-telescope as CMB-detector. The model takes the form of set oscillators with damping (see here for some more details)
where the subindices indicate differentiation with respect to space x and time t, and
- Utt−Uxx−γUttt−h2Uxxt=f
where γ represents the constant in Planck's radiation law and h represents a smallest mesh size, connected to dissipative losses as outgoing radiation and internal heating, respectively.
- Utt−Uxx represents the oscillators in a wave model
- −γUttt is a dissipative term modeling outgoing radiation
- −h2Uxxt is a dissipative modeling internal heating
- f is incoming forcing/microwaves,
Microwaves are characterized by low frequency and long wave length (compared to visible and
infrared light) and in this case the dissipative loss of internal heating is small and is not detectable while the resonance can be detected after amplification just like a radio antenna is capable of detecting a weak radio wave by resonance followed by amplification.
Pictures of CMB are thus produced by an IR-camera in the form of a radio-telescope which works by resonance and not radiative heating. A CMB picture can therefore not be used as evidence that the weak glow of CMB acts as in a weak form of radiative heating named DLR or backradiation. This is because the CMB picture is not obtained from detection of radiative heating, but from resonance and amplification.
We conclude that a CMB picture is not any evidence of DLR, because no DLR is detected.
You can't argue your way out of the fact that cosmic background radiation at 2.7K hit Penzias and Wilson's telescope sensor at a temperature of 4K. That was quite observable, measurable, and testable. We're talking about thermal EM radiation here. The CMB didn't transmit "resonant radio frequencies".Sorry guy, it was a resonant radio frequency that Wilson's telescope received...not CMB...if you want to actually receive CMB you need an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.5K...like I said, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even grasp the concept of a resonant radio frequency and how that relates other types of energy.
Sorry guy...it was a radio telescope and detected a resonant radio frequency...
I don't think so. As weird as he is, Claes is the smarter one.Claes Johnson15 oktober 2011 16:04
What is a radiowave photon? Has anybody observed anything like that?
Is this where SSDD got the idea that there are no radio photons?
Is SSDD really Claes?
I don't think so. As weird as he is, Claes is the smarter one.Claes Johnson15 oktober 2011 16:04
What is a radiowave photon? Has anybody observed anything like that?
Is this where SSDD got the idea that there are no radio photons?
Is SSDD really Claes?
True, but perhaps others that reach an even lower bar are the ones that give a "Winner" rating to crap posts that they don't even understand.That's a low bar.........
