Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

I love it!
None of these waves hit the Earth, because it's too warm, but they somehow, magically, cause a receiver to resonate.
Hilarious!

And the whole topic remains so far over your head as to completely escape you....Radio telescope...looking outside the earth system...resonant radio frequency...not actual CMB...you have heard it all before and it was over your head then which is why you are still making the same goofy statements.

 

[SSDD]

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?

I don't see a any link you gave ian, but I would ask whether those dots are the result of the original detection of CMB or if they are from later work done with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.7K?

 

[SSDD]

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.

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.

Are you really that stupid? Never mind...you obviously are.

More bitter juvenile retorts. Is that all you got? Sad.

Look back at your own little laugh fest with ian before you accuse me of being bitter....and I have already won this discussion...you still believe that that original RADIO telescope was looking at IR radiation.

 

[SSDD]

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.

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 radio telescope and detected a resonant radio frequency...

In physics, resonance is a phenomenon in which a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at specific frequencies.


Resonance - Wikipedia

Exactly...CMB is a vibrating system...the vibrations from that system resonate in the radio frequencies...a different system...that is how they were able to detect CMB via radio waves while not actually receiving CMB.

Even when you are looking at the very definition of resonance, and the definition tells you that the vibrations from one system causes another system to oscillate at a greater amplitude, you still apparently don't grasp that they weren't detecting CMB IR with that radio telescope, they were detecting the oscillations in the radio frequencies caused by the CMB.

 

[SSDD]

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?

It is well known, and frequently observed that radio waves can cancel each other out....great care must be taken when setting up transmitters and repeaters to assure that this does not happen. Are you now acknowledging that light waves, which you believe are made of photons can also cancel each other out if they are on the same frequency in direct opposition to ian's insistence that photons can only interact with matter and not other photons?

 

[Wuwei]

I don't see a any link you gave ian, but I would ask whether those dots are the result of the original detection of CMB or if they are from later work done with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.7K?

The sample points (dots) were from the COBE satellite which was the latest cooled detector technology. The point is that it proves that the background radiation is thermal since it fits the black body curve amazingly well.

Penzias and Wilson's telescope similarly recorded sampled points that fit the BB curve, only their detector was at a higher temperature (4K) than the COBE detector. With their fewer samples they were still able to find the temperature was roughly 2.7, within experimental error.

 

[Wuwei]

Look back at your own little laugh fest with ian before you accuse me of being bitter....and I have already won this discussion...you still believe that that original RADIO telescope was looking at IR radiation.

Every scientist believes that. They even got a Nobel Prize for that discovery.

 

[Wuwei]

It is well known, and frequently observed that radio waves can cancel each other out....great care must be taken when setting up transmitters and repeaters to assure that this does not happen. Are you now acknowledging that light waves, which you believe are made of photons can also cancel each other out if they are on the same frequency in direct opposition to ian's insistence that photons can only interact with matter and not other photons?

Please look up coherent or incoherent EM waves.
Radio waves from transmitters are coherent and can cancel when they are out of phase, or amplify when they are in phase. That capability allows antennae to focus EM waves. However, whatever the outcome, the total EM energy must be conserved.

Incoherent sources such as BB radiation cannot reinforce nor cancel in any measurable way.

 

[Wuwei]

Exactly...CMB is a vibrating system...the vibrations from that system resonate in the radio frequencies...a different system...that is how they were able to detect CMB via radio waves while not actually receiving CMB.

Even when you are looking at the very definition of resonance, and the definition tells you that the vibrations from one system causes another system to oscillate at a greater amplitude, you still apparently don't grasp that they weren't detecting CMB IR with that radio telescope, they were detecting the oscillations in the radio frequencies caused by the CMB.

You are saying the resonantly tuned detectors of Penzias and Wilson's telescope detected radio wave oscillations from the CMB. But they weren't detecting the IR radio oscillations from the CMB. That's a contradiction, to put it mildly.

That is like saying you hear Rush Limbaugh on your car radio, but your car radio isn't actually receiving the broadcast because there is a tuned amplifier in your car radio. Furthermore, I would suggest you tune your radio to NPR.

 

[SSDD]

I don't see a any link you gave ian, but I would ask whether those dots are the result of the original detection of CMB or if they are from later work done with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.7K?

The sample points (dots) were from the COBE satellite which was the latest cooled detector technology. The point is that it proves that the background radiation is thermal since it fits the black body curve amazingly well.

Penzias and Wilson's telescope similarly recorded sampled points that fit the BB curve, only their detector was at a higher temperature (4K) than the COBE detector. With their fewer samples they were still able to find the temperature was roughly 2.7, within experimental error.

I never said that it wasn't thermal radiation...the point is that it was originally detected via resonant radio frequency...after that initial detection, most of the research has been done with equipment designed to detect microwaves...which has been cooled to lower than 2.7K...the radio telescope detected a radio frequency that resonated to the microwave frequency of CMB. The radio telescope did not directly receive CMB...

 

[SSDD]

Look back at your own little laugh fest with ian before you accuse me of being bitter....and I have already won this discussion...you still believe that that original RADIO telescope was looking at IR radiation.

Every scientist believes that. They even got a Nobel Prize for that discovery.

They got a nobel for detecting CMB...they detected it via a resonant radio frequency, not direct measurement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I love it!
None of these waves hit the Earth, because it's too warm, but they somehow, magically, cause a receiver to resonate.
Hilarious!

And the whole topic remains so far over your head as to completely escape you....Radio telescope...looking outside the earth system...resonant radio frequency...not actual CMB...you have heard it all before and it was over your head then which is why you are still making the same goofy statements.

Radio telescope...looking outside the earth system...resonant radio frequency...not actual CMB

Nothing actually hit the receiver?
Tell me more.

 

[SSDD]

It is well known, and frequently observed that radio waves can cancel each other out....great care must be taken when setting up transmitters and repeaters to assure that this does not happen. Are you now acknowledging that light waves, which you believe are made of photons can also cancel each other out if they are on the same frequency in direct opposition to ian's insistence that photons can only interact with matter and not other photons?

Please look up coherent or incoherent EM waves.
Radio waves from transmitters are coherent and can cancel when they are out of phase, or amplify when they are in phase. That capability allows antennae to focus EM waves. However, whatever the outcome, the total EM energy must be conserved.

Incoherent sources such as BB radiation cannot reinforce nor cancel in any measurable way.

It is being learned that BB radiation is perhaps not as incoherent as though and, in fact, has coherent properties...in fact you can see interference lines in black body radiation yourself with nothing more than two fingers or a couple of playing cards.

Phys. Rev. 134, A1143 (1964) - Coherence Properties of Blackbody Radiation. I. Correlation Tensors of the Classical Field

Coherence properties of blackbody radiation and application to energy harvesting

Application of Coherence Theory to Modeling of Blackbody Radiation at Close Range

Suffice it to way that your claim that BB radiation can not amplify or cancel in any measurable way is simply not true.

 

[SSDD]

Exactly...CMB is a vibrating system...the vibrations from that system resonate in the radio frequencies...a different system...that is how they were able to detect CMB via radio waves while not actually receiving CMB.

Even when you are looking at the very definition of resonance, and the definition tells you that the vibrations from one system causes another system to oscillate at a greater amplitude, you still apparently don't grasp that they weren't detecting CMB IR with that radio telescope, they were detecting the oscillations in the radio frequencies caused by the CMB.

You are saying the resonantly tuned detectors of Penzias and Wilson's telescope detected radio wave oscillations from the CMB. But they weren't detecting the IR radio oscillations from the CMB. That's a contradiction, to put it mildly.

That is like saying you hear Rush Limbaugh on your car radio, but your car radio isn't actually receiving the broadcast because there is a tuned amplifier in your car radio. Furthermore, I would suggest you tune your radio to NPR.

They detected CMB but didn't actually receive CMB...they received a resonant radio frequency that created a buzz across the whole spectrum...by the process of elimination, they discovered that it was a resonant radio frequency of CMB...

 

[SSDD]

You know you are in intellectual trouble when you find that you must lie in an effort to defend yourself or make your opponent look bad. Here is the question I asked: Do point out any "garble" there? the question is as straight forward as it can get. Does this equation describe any radiator radiating anywhere, or does it describe a black body radiating into a vacuum absent any other matter. What exactly do you find "garbled about that question?

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

And just in case the first lie wasn't good enough, may as well toss in another for good measure...right?

The first answer I received to the question was:

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

Meaning that it is in fact, an equation describing a radiator in a vacuum...since you would have to modify the equation if it were not in a vacuum.

The second answer I received was:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

Neither answer was ambiguous in the least...how much more straight forward could they be? And by the way, the answers were exactly what I expected to hear. You have a damned nasty habit of lying about your opponent if you feel like it might help your case...it doesn't..it only highlights a fundamental flaw in your character. You try to put on a show of being open minded and honest, but talking the talk and walking the walk are two very different things.


The only one here who lost credit is you ian..because you lied and claimed that I asked a "garbled" question and then lied again claiming that the answers I received were ambiguous...the question was not garbled and the answers were not ambiguous and there was no need for me to abuse them as they were exactly the answers I expected.

Link up to the original thread. Prove my memory to be faulty, although I will gladly admit that it often is.

No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

And it isn't just your memory that is faulty...When you return to that thread...take a look at some of the utter bullshit you tried to spew in an attempt to defend your position...the fundamental SB equation describes a two dimensional object...imagine, a two dimensional object...a two dimensional perfect black body no less radiating in all directions...where do you come up with that stuff? Is there anything you won't say in an effort to defend your beliefs?

Thanks for the link.

Is it possible for you to show all of the initial response, rather than just one sentence fragment, without the context? TIA

That was the entire response from each of the physicists...I sent out 4 emails and got two responses...I am sure that if you took the time to send out more emails to more physicists you would get the same sort of answers that I got...and if you tease them a bit, you could probably get them to add something in there about net to satisfy you....I am sure that they all believe in net energy transfer even though there is no physical evidence....that wasn't the issue anyway..it was what the equations themselves were stating...that being one describing a radiator radiating to cooler surroundings with no other matter present...and one describing the different amount of energy the radiator emits when it is in the presence of other matter...the difference between T and Tc.

So you are saying his entire response was-

.
" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

I find that somewhat hard to believe. If he was just going to blow you off why would he respond at all.

Couldn't say...maybe he is a busy man and answered my question as explicitly as possible but didn't have time to be friendly. I wasn't offended nor did I feel blown off...I received a straight forward answer to my question...I asked a straight forward question and got a straight forward answer..I didn't invite him to a picnic...

 

[Wuwei]

They detected CMB but didn't actually receive CMB...they received a resonant radio frequency that created a buzz across the whole spectrum...by the process of elimination, they discovered that it was a resonant radio frequency of CMB...

That is absolute nonsense and you know it. They didn't "discover" it was resonant. They made sure a high Q detector was tuned to sample the CMB at different frequencies.

Another contradiction: "a resonant radio frequency that created a buzz across the whole spectrum" How could it be resonant (tuned to one frequency) if it created a "buzz" across the "whole spectrum." Please translate "buzz into more meaningful science language. Your post is a hash of words that have no scientific interpretation.

 

[Wuwei]

...the radio telescope detected a radio frequency that resonated to the microwave frequency of CMB. The radio telescope did not directly receive CMB...

If the detector did not receive any CMB how did it detect anything.

 

[IanC]

Link up to the original thread. Prove my memory to be faulty, although I will gladly admit that it often is.

No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

And it isn't just your memory that is faulty...When you return to that thread...take a look at some of the utter bullshit you tried to spew in an attempt to defend your position...the fundamental SB equation describes a two dimensional object...imagine, a two dimensional object...a two dimensional perfect black body no less radiating in all directions...where do you come up with that stuff? Is there anything you won't say in an effort to defend your beliefs?

Thanks for the link.

Is it possible for you to show all of the initial response, rather than just one sentence fragment, without the context? TIA

That was the entire response from each of the physicists...I sent out 4 emails and got two responses...I am sure that if you took the time to send out more emails to more physicists you would get the same sort of answers that I got...and if you tease them a bit, you could probably get them to add something in there about net to satisfy you....I am sure that they all believe in net energy transfer even though there is no physical evidence....that wasn't the issue anyway..it was what the equations themselves were stating...that being one describing a radiator radiating to cooler surroundings with no other matter present...and one describing the different amount of energy the radiator emits when it is in the presence of other matter...the difference between T and Tc.

So you are saying his entire response was-

.
" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."

I find that somewhat hard to believe. If he was just going to blow you off why would he respond at all.

Couldn't say...maybe he is a busy man and answered my question as explicitly as possible but didn't have time to be friendly. I wasn't offended nor did I feel blown off...I received a straight forward answer to my question...I asked a straight forward question and got a straight forward answer..I didn't invite him to a picnic...

I call bullshit. He wouldn't have given a curt nonresponsive answer if he made the effort to respond at all. At the very least he would have pointed you in a direction to find more info.

 

[IanC]

...the radio telescope detected a radio frequency that resonated to the microwave frequency of CMB. The radio telescope did not directly receive CMB...

If the detector did not receive any CMB how did it detect anything.

Hahahaha, your false logic has no power to defeat SSDD. He knows he's right, and no trick will sway him.

All hail SSDD, the true prophet.

 

[Wuwei]

It is well known, and frequently observed that radio waves can cancel each other out....great care must be taken when setting up transmitters and repeaters to assure that this does not happen. Are you now acknowledging that light waves, which you believe are made of photons can also cancel each other out if they are on the same frequency in direct opposition to ian's insistence that photons can only interact with matter and not other photons?

Please look up coherent or incoherent EM waves.
Radio waves from transmitters are coherent and can cancel when they are out of phase, or amplify when they are in phase. That capability allows antennae to focus EM waves. However, whatever the outcome, the total EM energy must be conserved.

Incoherent sources such as BB radiation cannot reinforce nor cancel in any measurable way.

It is being learned that BB radiation is perhaps not as incoherent as though and, in fact, has coherent properties...in fact you can see interference lines in black body radiation yourself with nothing more than two fingers or a couple of playing cards.

Phys. Rev. 134, A1143 (1964) - Coherence Properties of Blackbody Radiation. I. Correlation Tensors of the Classical Field

Coherence properties of blackbody radiation and application to energy harvesting

Application of Coherence Theory to Modeling of Blackbody Radiation at Close Range

Suffice it to way that your claim that BB radiation can not amplify or cancel in any measurable way is simply not true.

For God's sake SSDD, you do that all the time. You take some words from my post, Google them and come back with some papers or abstracts, and without understanding what you found, you think you have a cogent retort.

BB coherence is self coherence over very small distances. BB coherence takes advantage of the specific BB spectral properties to create a mathematical models. It does not ever mean that two different BB photons can interact with each other.

Secondly, interference lines and diffraction are properties of waves interacting with matter. That has nothing to do with photons canceling each other out.

Ian is right two photons cannot interact with each other at earth ambient temperatures.

However gamma-gamma interactions were predicted and seen to happen in high energy accelerators. Yes it's irrelevant, but I'm only saying it here so you won't google it and think you have another gotcha.