Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 03:23:17 +0000
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_Want_to_prove_E=3dmc=c2=b2=3f_University_labs_should_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?try_this!?=
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <b00a0cb305a96b0e83d493ad2d2e03e8@www.novabbs.com>
 <c8df6716ae871b79524720426a3f229a@www.novabbs.com>
 <7adfc9e5c6884729def0c6a0097c9f37@www.novabbs.com>
 <humdnTd1BNWduN36nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <092fa494db9895ba52cfac350be5e744@www.novabbs.com>
 <afe961104287110aab310b0cc3b5f8ef@www.novabbs.com>
 <98654d26cc4f5fd326f071ea7d4317b8@www.novabbs.com>
 <6292a6508a7a1b7e2f7d13951685410d@www.novabbs.com>
 <7387e2f099b81abacc7cf1184a11db86@www.novabbs.com>
 <c25f832f113e2f2e620db970e654daaf@www.novabbs.com>
 <1c8ddce1b3c5cc1caa998058c5cb0abe@www.novabbs.com>
 <014401c969346dfb15470705c326f119@www.novabbs.com>
 <7385bfc7c2c172eb9c645aa1d675abb4@www.novabbs.com>
 <167497c7f930292318e208972ad70a5b@www.novabbs.com>
 <202e7fd600f0fc3fea5f36f556d75a88@www.novabbs.com>
 <9c2a3620b1b5f5700f14831366a5e8ce@www.novabbs.com>
 <853edd082f9e29c2c8cd7c9a6b140a3c@www.novabbs.com>
 <5fae500e5c01172d804fc8cb607e99b1@www.novabbs.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 19:23:14 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5fae500e5c01172d804fc8cb607e99b1@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <20qdnX1__rq4f9r6nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 209
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NhlOSE9HF62uFTygZVjnxzgdPbB/qkApMQzMxaUxfwfJkgG2HG8xz/HtxGfXhWF6jIkMTfiq9uYRP2T!orgzqK1/nDGYdWkMy3bydWh55ouOtZHKez0CtByftJqq7QxLgHVCQsz82cT7xDolnymOafZJdghx!ww==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 10669

On 11/27/2024 04:09 PM, rhertz wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 4:18:19 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In class some 55 or so years ago, we derived Planck's Law using
>> Einstein's method. We also derived various consequences of the law,
>> including the formula for energy density u. I won't claim that I
>> would be able to re-derive the formulas without a lot of review, but
>> the basic skills still lie dormant within my skull. So don't try to
>> snow me. You are only a former electrical engineer, a highly competent
>> one, but untrained in physics, as is evident by the types of mistakes
>> that you have been making.
>>
>> For example, no competent physics student would mix up his units in
>> the manner that you have been doing.
>>
>> No competent physicist would write "ΔT = 2E/(3 PV)" and then claim
>> that the only thing he did wrong was to leave out n.
>>
>> If I do something silly like goof up by a factor of 10, I own up to
>> my mistake. You seem almost incapable of admitting error.
>
> <snip>
>
>> I don't see much point in reading an article about radiometry from
>> somebody who doesn't check his units.
>>
>> There are several related terms that should be distinguished.
>> Radiant exitance (radiant emittance) has units of W/m^2
>> Spectral exitance in wavelength has units of W/m^3
>>
>> The formula u = 4 σ T^4/c, which you claim that I used incorrectly,
>> has units of Joules/m^3
>>
>> They aren't the same thing.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Your perpetual motion device, whereby you use a 5 W laser to heat
>> up a 5 cm radius sphere to 707 K, would be quite impressive if it
>> worked.
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm sorry that you went mad with my previous post. At any case, it
> served for you displaying your true colors.
>
> I've been careful to maintain discussions with you, avoiding any
> downplaying or personal attacks. Quite a different attitude that I have
> with Paul, which is mostly boy's game interchange insults.
>
>
> You are not JUST a physicist either, and you're very far from being one.
>
> Here is how you described yourself two years ago:
>
> *********************************************************
> "Posted: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 09:49 by: Prokaryotic Capase H
>
> Hey, don't knock Halliday & Resnick! That's about as far as -I- ever
> got, since my undergraduate degree was in biology. In graduate school, I
> studied molecular biology, and for my postdoc, I studied bacterial
> replication origins. I've spent the last quarter century in software
> engineering, and my favorite websites are ....."
> ********************************************************
>
> Your comments:
>
> "For example, no competent physics student would mix up his units in
> the manner that you have been doing".
>
> "You seem almost incapable of admitting error."
>
> "So don't try to snow me. You are only a former electrical engineer..."
>
> "Your perpetual motion device, whereby you use a 5 W laser to heat
> up a 5 cm radius sphere to 707 K, would be quite impressive if it
> worked."
>
>
> show how far are you willing to go in the heat of a discussion: You LIED
> (I told you that the 707 K were from a ChatGPT, not me. I CONSULTED YOU
> ABOUT IT, and you didn't care), you downplayed me and, for worse, you
> are somehow PRETENDING that you're closer to physics than me.
>
> Actually, I'm not just an engineer. I have also two master degrees, and
> I didn't pursue a PhD because I considered it was A STUPID THING TO DO,
> even when many advised me to go for it. I'm not a person that lives from
> flashing academic degrees or achievements. Furthermore, I'm sure that,
> in the last 50 years, the number of theoretical and experimental
> realizations that I did EXCEED yours by 10x. I was a prolific achiever,
> but I never wanted to show off it, nor at the university or places of
> work. I refused to publish for general audience, as I didn't want to
> seek for fame/glory. I'm THE ONLY JUDGE that I accept, and I'm immune to
> any praise or prize since I was a little kid.
>
>
> I'm going to tell this one more time, because it's the center of the
> problem:
>
>
> Using a modified Stefan's formula (by 4/c) to calculate the internal
> temperature of a small aluminum cavity IS AN ABERRATION OF COMMON SENSE.
>
>
> Eventually, it has been used to FIGURE OUT the internal temperature of
> STARS, even when this alone is a risky assumption.
>
>
> In your calculation of 1,000,000+ K inside the cavity, YOU SHOULD HAVE
> STOPPED at 660.3"C (930.3 K) when ALUMINUM MELTS.
>
> Why did you persist in using such stupid value? I can't figure it out.
>
>
> At any case, and being the big excellent number-cruncher that you claim
> you are, you should have stopped at 930.3 K, and then calculating the
> energy density.
>
> But it would have been wrong ALSO, because you're using a formula
> CONCEIVED by the omnidirectional energy density OUTSIDE the BBC, because
> Stefan's formula (applied in astronomy) is based on the hypothesis that
> A HUGE RADIANT SPHERE (like a star) can be taken AS A FLAT DISK that has
> properties allowing it to behave AS A CAVITY (one dimension is missing).
>
> In the same way, I completely disagree with the OPINION - NO FACTS
> (since 1964 up to 1993 COBE manipulated results), that the CBR measured
> EXACTLY as a BBC. To start, such CBR didn't reach both edges of the
> Universe (conceived as spherical), so not even a basic equilibrium has
> been reached. It's wrong to think and push such stupid idea, as well as
> the geometrical nature of GR.
>
> That legions of pseudo-scientists embrace such theories, because some
> mathematical model emerged and was religiously adopted, only serves to
> me to REINFORCE my conception about physics, which I consider mostly A
> FARCE.
>
> That's why I dropped studying physics, after two years, when I was 15. I
> went to SERIOUS SCIENCE, which is engineering.
>
> Physics is dying at an accelerated pace, so do most physicists working
> on borderline theories in cosmology and the quantum world.


Crank!

Crank? Probably a crank-bot. Launched as by hooligans, of a sort,
the crank-bots are considered criminals. Though, one might weigh
perceived mental sociopathic tendencies against possibly fruitful
ideas in innovation.



Explain "charge velocity".



========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========