Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Want to prove =?UTF-8?B?RT1tY8KyPyBVbml2ZXJzaXR5IGxhYnMgc2hvdWxkIHRy?=
 =?UTF-8?B?eSB0aGlzIQ==?=
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 04:18:22 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <853edd082f9e29c2c8cd7c9a6b140a3c@www.novabbs.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="110247"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="Ooch2ht+q3xfrepY75FKkEEx2SPWDQTvfft66HacveI";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$0MwdXewb7Wdj3RAW3jbDm.sndwqEPi3i08886jlPm.2z/8rZ422SS
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 504a4e36a1e6a0679da537f565a179f60d7acbd8
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6966
Lines: 116

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 1:22:42 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 23:44:18 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:07:31 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> You are mixing different concepts of the theories around BBC.
>>>
>>> I invite you to read the history of developments in BBC radiation, which
>>> I wrote in 2019, and that end with Planck's discovery of h.
>>>
>>> Thermal Radiation, Black Body Theory and the Birth of Quantum Physics
>>>
>>> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/
>>>
>>>
>>> Read the last part, about RADIOMETRY, and the definitions of:
>>>
>>> Spectral Radiant Energy inside a cavity: The original formulae u and E
>>> from Planck. THESE ARE THE ORIGINAL PLANCK'S FORMULAE INSIDE THE BBC.

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.

>>> Spectral Radiant Exitance Me(𝜆,T) at the aperture in the cavity: THIS IS
>>> WHAT YOU USED.
>>
>> No, I was calculating energy density, assuming the black body nature
>> of the radiation. Read again that section of the Wikipedia article
>> that I provided you a link for.
>>
>>> IT'S THE ENERGY THAT FLOWS OUT OF THE BBC, THROUGH A
>>> HOLE. This was what was ACTUALLY MEASURED at the BPT, whose physicists
>>> provided ESSENTIAL INFORMATION to Planck in October 1900. He had two
>>> months left to present his paper at the German Physics Society on
>>> December 14, 1900 (date considered the birth of quantum physics).
>>>
>>> IRRADIANCE is measured outside the BBC, and the factor c/4 allowed the
>>> use of Planck's formula to measurements and calculations in astronomy.
>>> NOR HIM NEITHER WIEN DERIVED SUCH EQUATION. It was derived AFTER THEM,
>>> by physicists working in RADIOMETRY.
>
>
> You are wrong having such attitude of denial about NOT READING the
> Radiometry part of my link.
>
> It speaks volumes about your stubbornness in NOT ACCEPTING that you were
> wrong using such Stefan's modified formula.

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.

> The Wiki article is a pile of crap, no less. Using Stefan's law modified
> to compute broadband irradiance in a closed cavity IS BEYOND STUPIDITY.
>
>
>> You weren't calculating energy density, assuming the black body nature
>> of the radiation. You did copy an ill-written link which used Stefan's
>> law multiplied by 4/c, which is A FACTOR USED in Spectral Radiant
>> Exitance Me(𝜆,T) at the aperture in the BB cavity.
>
> Now, if you want TO DENY the knowledge that Radiometry provides, science
> that has more than 130 years of accumulated experience, then you're just
> in denial about the history of thermodynamics and applied physics.
>
> I don't claim, not even close, to be knowledgeable in thermodynamics.

Obviously not.

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.

> What I wrote in 2019 was MY FIRST ATTEMPT to publish something in a
> blog. By then, I was curious about the origins of quantum physics, and I
> collected and published information about the developments in the
> understanding of what RADIANT HEAT was. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> I was too lazy to continue with other stories about advances in physics,
> so I stop right there. I'm not a kind of person that need to publish
> papers to satisfy my ego. I did it, for many years, in journals
> specialized in defense, but I was almost forced to communicate such
> content in specialized media. Never liked it. I like results, not blah,
> blah, blah,....
>
>
> Having you a PhD in Molecular Biology (or similar), I find it shocking
> that you be so mind closed. One thing is stubbornness to defend your
> position, but with an open mind, and other thing is you persisting in
> YOUR INTERPRETATION of issues, negating ANY CHANCE to review your
> position. That's very wrong, and it's far from what I am and I practice.