"The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory"
-
I have been reading "About Face! Why the World Needs More Carbon Dioxide" and found a reference to the above titled article. The article exposes the global warming alarmists' fraud. It appears that the so-called greenhouse gases are not the only atmospheric gases that can be heated up and then emit infrared (light). It is true that only those so-called greenhouse gases can absorb infrared but they are not the only gases that can emit infrared, as both nitrogen and oxygen can also do that. And yes both nitrogen and oxygen can also be heated and then emit infrared. "Oh. So the whole atmosphere radiates heat to the earth and makes it warmer. All of the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas."
Read it for yourself:
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
Whoopsie
I have been reading "About Face! Why the World Needs More Carbon Dioxide" and found a reference to the above titled article. The article exposes the global warming alarmists' fraud. It appears that the so-called greenhouse gases are not the only atmospheric gases that can be heated up and then emit infrared (light). It is true that only those so-called greenhouse gases can absorb infrared but they are not the only gases that can emit infrared, as both nitrogen and oxygen can also do that. And yes both nitrogen and oxygen can also be heated and then emit infrared. "Oh. So the whole atmosphere radiates heat to the earth and makes it warmer. All of the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas."
Read it for yourself:
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
Whoopsie
posted by Joe G @ 9:20 AM
99 Comments:
At 7:55 PM,
oleg said…
The author says "Any heated atmospheric gas radiates infrared energy back toward the earth." That's incorrect.
Gases emit and absorb radiation only at characteristic frequencies that correspond to transitions between their atomic or molecular energy levels. Anyone who has looked at the spectrum of a hydrogen lamp (a basic physics experiment in college) knows that.
Symmetric diatomic molecules like O2 and N2 do not possess spectral lines in the far infrared. They simply can't emit that kind of light, whereas CO2 and H2O can. The reason for this is somewhat technical (has to do with the absence or presence of an electric dipole moment), but one need not go into such details to know that gases only emit radiation at characteristic frequencies, and the major atmospheric gases do not absorb or emit in the far infrared.
At 9:58 PM,
Joe G said…
I thought their configuration allowed them to due both, ie absorb and emit infrared. Whereas the other atmospheric gases can just emit infrared after being thermically energized by conduction and/ or convection.
What do heated gas molecules emit if not infrared? Does thermal imaging only work in the presence of so-called greenhouse gases?
Well oleg, this sounds like the making off a great experiment. Heat a chamber filled with 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen and see if you get emissions of infrared.
HEAT the hydrogen, don't burn it, and see if the heated hydrogen emits infrared.
My bet is if you can heat it whatever you heated will emit infrared. What do you think, oleg?
At 12:32 AM,
oleg said…
Of course people have done these experiments, Joe. Spectroscopy of gases is well understood. You can find the absorption (and emission) lines of molecular gases on the web. Here, for example: http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
Take a look at Fig. 6.3, showing transmission spectra of the major atmospheric gases. Thermal radiation occurring at typical atmospheric temperatures (300 K) has the wavelength of 10 microns and longer (far infrared). As you can see from that figure, O2 shows no absorption in that range. Neither does N2 (not shown). In contrast, CO2 and H2O show string absorption in the wavelength range of 10 to 20 microns.
Although both types of molecules can vibrate at the frequencies corresponding to light in this range, vibrations of symmetric diatomic molecules (N2, O2 and such) do not produce oscillating electric dipoles; therefore these vibrations do not produce infrared light. In contrast, asymmetric molecules like CO2 possess an electric dipole moment, so their rotational motion generates electromagnetic radiation. That's the reason why the major gases like N2 and O2 are transparent to thermal radiation, whereas the less abundant CO2 and H2O are not. The latter are greenhouse gases, the former are not.
At 8:41 AM,
Joe G said…
What the fuck is wrong with you? I did NOT say oxygen and nitrogen absorbed infrared. I said they emitted it once they were heated. That is because heated objects radiate infrared- and molecules are objects.
That's the reason why the major gases like N2 and O2 are transparent to thermal radiation
So O2 and N2 cannot be heated? Is that your claim? Really?
The wikipedia article on infrared does not support you:
Infrared energy is emitted or absorbed by molecules when they change their rotational-vibrational movements.
I noticed that you were too chicken to answer my question. Very telling, that.
At 8:46 AM,
oleg said…
Joe, absorption and emission happens at the same wavelengths. Learn some basic physics! http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node107.html
At 12:08 PM,
Joe G said…
Did you even read your own reference? The elements don't give off just one "line"- they emit a series of "lines".
Even hydrogen emits infrared- Emission Spectrum of Hydrogen
Check out the emission spectrum of oxygen
And now take a look at the emission spectrum of nitrogen
Learn some physics, oleg
At 12:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Take a look at these:
Spectra of Gas Discharges
How are you going to deal with this, oleg? Joe Sixpack once again proves to be more knowledgeable than you.
At 12:31 PM,
oleg said…
Joe, let's look at the links you provided.
The very first one, the emission spectrum of hydrogen, shows the spectral lines of atomic (not molecular!) hydrogen. The figure shows four lines in the visible range (violet, blue-violet, blue-green, red).
Infrared radiation can only be emitted when the hydrogen atom makes transitions between two high-energy states, levels with large numbers n1 and n2. Such states are not accessible when the hydrogen gas is at room temperature or lower: when T=300 K, practically all hydrogen atoms are in the n=1 state. As a result, you won't see any absorption (or emission) in a hydrogen gas at atmospheric temperature in the infrared range.
Again, see Fig. 6.3 for the spectra of molecular O2 and CO2. They show no lines in the far infrared for O2 and plenty of lines for CO2.
At 12:33 PM,
Joe G said…
OK, so greenhouse gases are those gases that can absorb infrared radiation which heats them and they then emit infrared radiation. O2 and N2, otoh, do not get excited by infrared radiation. They get their thermal energy via conduction and/ or convection. And yes they both emit infrared radiation when heated.
Physics 101
At 12:35 PM,
oleg said…
Again, your links show spectra of elements, i.e., atoms (e.g., O), and the diagrams only cover the visible range. What you need is spectra of molecular gases, (e.g., O2). Do you understand the difference between atoms and molecules, Joe?
At 12:39 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Move those goalposts to the far infrared
At 12:42 PM,
oleg said…
Joe: "O2 and N2, otoh, do not get excited by infrared radiation. They get their thermal energy via conduction and/ or convection. And yes they both emit infrared radiation when heated."
Again, this is wrong. A substance emits radiation on the same wavelengths where it absorbs radiation. If you agree that N2 and O2 do not absorb far infrared radiation then they don't emit it, either.
Physics 101, indeed.
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1910
At 12:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Well oleg they definitely emit it as shown by the analysis.
At 12:59 PM,
oleg said…
Joe, you are completely, absolutely wrong about that. Read my last link. It says, in particular: "Absorption is just emission in reverse. Atoms can absorb light at the same frequencies they emit at, going from their lowest-energy state to an excited state."
Same goes for molecules and, in fact, all substances. If a substance cannot absorb light of some frequency, it cannot emit it either.
At 1:18 PM,
oleg said…
You might want to look up some physics textbook. Or start with Wikipedia.
Here is what the Wikipedia article on absorption spectra says: "Emission can occur at any frequency at which absorption can occur, and this allows the absorption lines to be determined from an emission spectrum." For this reason, spectroscopists don't distinguish between emission and absorption lines and simply refer to them as spectral lines.
At 1:27 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg- your reference says that O2 emits infrared. What the fuck is wrong with you?
At 1:28 PM,
Joe G said…
Your strawman is the "far infrared". No one said anything about that except you.
At 1:29 PM,
Joe G said…
According to your reference O3 emits even more infrared than O2 and yes, its wavelength is longer than O2's.
At 1:36 PM,
oleg said…
Joe, far infrared is not a straw man. The radiation relevant to the greenhouse effect is just that: far infrared. Here is Wikipedia:
"The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form UV, visible, and near IR radiation, most of which passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. Of the total amount of energy available at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), about 50% is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are predominantly much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed (the overlap between the incident solar spectrum and the terrestrial thermal spectrum is small enough to be neglected for most purposes)."
The spectrum of thermal radiation emitted at T=300 K is shown here, for example. You can see that it involves wavelengths longer than 5 microns.
At 2:09 PM,
Joe G said…
So the infrared that O2 emits doesn't have any thermal effect? Really?
And objects do emit infrared that is of a different frequency than that it absorbed? Oops, you said something different earlier.
Emission can occur (your reference's words) at the same frequency as absorption but obviously it doesn't have to.
At 2:13 PM,
oleg said…
Oh, it does have to.The emission and absorption coefficients are related by simple proportionality. This has been known since Einstein.
At 2:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Ok so the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation. Some molecules absorb it, vibrate and radiate it, some of which comes back to the earth. O2 and N2 also get heated via conduction and convection, vibrate and radiate infrared, some of which come back to the earth.
And due to the sheer volume of O2 and N2 the sum effect of their radiations dwarfs that of the greenhouse gases.
At 2:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Your wikipedia reference says otherwise, oleg:
Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are predominantly much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed
Learn how to read.
At 2:28 PM,
oleg said…
Joe, you obviously don't understand the text. There is no contradiction with what I wrote.
And no, O2 and N2 don't emit in the far infrared just as they don't absorb in the far infrared. Again, see the O2 absorption spectrum in Fig. 6.3 of this reference. No absorption, no emission.
At 3:32 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! You said the absorption and emission frequencies are the same. Wikipedia says they are not.
And no one claimed that O2 and N2 absorb and emit the far infrared. You are deluded.
At 4:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Frequency = wavelength. A longer wavelength = a lower frequency.
Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are predominantly much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed.
The absorption frequency > the emission frequency.
And the air does get heated- all of it. And then that heat can be transferred back to the earth.
At 4:08 PM,
oleg said…
Joe, it's a basic, well-known fact of spectroscopy that absorption and emission frequencies are always the same! See here, for example.
The Wikipedia article doesn't contradict this principle. It merely says that incoming solar radiation (originating at a temperature of 6000 K) contains higher frequencies, and thus shorter wavelengths, than thermal radiation given off by the atmosphere (temperature 300 K). Absorption and emission frequencies of a given substance are always the same. However, because the incoming solar radiation has shorter wavelengths than the outgoing atmospheric radiation, different spectral lines are involved: visible range for absorbing solar radiation, infrared for giving off thermal radiation. Nonetheless, both absorbing and emitting lines come from the same set of spectral lines that is shown in Fig. 6.3. And since O2 does not have any spectral lines in the far infrared, it does not produce far infrared thermal radiation.
Get it? :)
At 4:11 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg's confusion is that he thinks that you have to absorb the far infrared in order to be heated/ effected.
If molecules are heated by conduction or convection they too will emit some species of infrared.
At 4:15 PM,
oleg said…
Joe, you still can't get through your thick skull a basic principle of spectroscopy: a substance cannot emit at a frequency where it does not absorb.
Molecular oxygen (O2) does not absorb in the far infrared. Therefore it cannot emit in the far infrared. Period.
At 4:17 PM,
Joe G said…
No oleg, Wikipedia says that the radiation absorbed by the earth are higher in frequency than those that are emitted. They say this is due to warming which must have an effect, ie the warmth must change the frequency.
And I don't care about the far infrared. The infrared the O2 emits is still thermal energy.
At 4:20 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg you are an asshole-
a substance cannot emit at a frequency where it does not absorb.
Wikipedia seems to disagree
Molecular oxygen (O2) does not absorb in the far infrared. Therefore it cannot emit in the far infrared
Who are you talking to? No one made the claim that O2 has emissions in the far infrared.
That is what I have been trying to tell you. What the fuck is wrong with you?
At 5:32 PM,
Joe G said…
OK, oleg, I see the confusion.
That the earth emits at a lower frequency than it absorbed means that at that time it can also absorb that lower frequency if it was available for absorption. The effect swings both ways.
OK.
Greenhouse gases are directly heated by that far infrared. O2 and N2 are heated by direct contact with the earth and by convection. And regardless of how they were heated they will have emissions in the infrared.
And that means the article is correct and you are wrong.
At 5:48 PM,
oleg said…
You still don't get it, Joe. O2 and N2 cannot emit light of the right range for T=300 K (wavelength of around 10 microns) because they simply lack spectral lines in that range!
At 7:10 PM,
William Spearshake said…
This has been interesting. Mr. 150 IQ boy fails (or refuses) to grasp something that a first year student in analytical chemistry understands. Willful ignorance is an IDist's best (and only) friend.
Joe, I suggest that you read up on atomic absorption and atomic emission spectroscopy.
At 7:14 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! No, oleg, YOU still don't get it. No one said that O2 and N2 can emit light of the right range for T=300 K (wavelength of around 10 microns).
You are fighting a strawman of your own creation. Nice job.
PS-The infrared consists of and contains other wavelengths
At 7:24 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Another clueless fuck chimes in.
What is it that you think I fail or refuse to grasp. Please do tell- I dare you
At 7:38 PM,
oleg said…
Joe, wavelengths shorter than 10 microns simply cannot be excited at T=300 K. The energy of molecular thermal motion is less than the energy of the photon. At the surface of the sun (T=6000 K), photons with wavelengths of order 0.5 microns (green light) are produced. At earth's surface (T=300 K), thermal photons have wavelengths of about 10 microns. That's why we are talking about the far infrared!
At 8:32 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg, are you telling me that when N2 and O2 start colliding with each other, that won't produce electromagnetic radiation?
Maybe I do need to take a refresher course- not
At 8:36 PM,
oleg said…
I'm telling you, Joe, that you have no clue about emission and absorption of light.
The absorption spectrum of O2 has been measured (see my reference above). It contains no spectral lines near the wavelength of 10 microns. It means that O2 does not absorb radiation in that range and does not emit it, either.
The author of the article in American Stinker has no clue, either.
At 9:55 PM,
Joe G said…
oleg- why do you refuse to answer my questions?
Are you saying that O2 cannot be heated above 300K? Can O2 and N2 be heated at all in oleg world? Do they just store the heat?
Are you saying that colliding molecules don't produce electromagnetic radiation?
Are you saying that the following is false:
Irrespective of the manner of transfer, all gases absorb heat, and all heated gases radiate heat (infrared light) in close proportion to their temperature. (from the book)
Do you disagree "that all matter with a temperature above absolute zero emit thermal radiation"?
BTW one of the authors of the book has 55 years in the fields of atmosphere, ocean and climate study.
At 10:33 PM,
oleg said…
Joe,
Of course O2 can be heated above 300 K. Then it will emit light at higher frequencies. However, this is irrelevant to the situation discussed in the article: emission of radiation by O2 in the earth's atmosphere, where the temperature is 300 K.
The quote you reproduce, "all heated gases radiate heat (infrared light) in close proportion to their temperature," is factually wrong. The power of thermal radiation is not proportional to the body's temperature. For a black body, emitting light at all wavelengths, the power is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature T.
For a gas with narrow spectral lines, the dependence is more complicated: those spectral lines whose photon energy is lower than the thermal energy emit the power directly proportional to T, while the rest of the are "frozen out". However, as temperature increases, more spectral lines become "unfrozen", so the power grows faster than T. E.g., for a blackbody, it grows as T to the fourth power.
Crucially, if all spectral lines have energies above thermal (as is the case for O2 at 300 K), it does not emit almost any radiation. The amount is suppressed literally exponentially, by the factor \exp(– hf/kT), where h is Planck's constant, f is the frequency of the lowest spectral line, and k is Boltzmann's constant.
I don't care if the author of the book has 55 years in the fields of atmosphere, ocean and climate study. If he doesn't understand the basics of emission and absorption of radiation, it's his own problem.
At 11:40 PM,
oleg said…
I've read an excerpt from the book, in which the authors claim that "any heated gas emits infrared radiation. There is nothing unique about CO2." They explain this emission in a qualitative way: "Electromagnetic radiation is produced whenever electric charges accelerate."
Here is why they are dead wrong. A hydrogen molecule is a neutral particle: it consists of two protons and two electrons. Not only its electric charge is zero, the electric dipole moment is zero as well (that's what sets it apart from CO2). When a hydrogen molecule accelerates as a whole unit, there is no electromagnetic radiation because positive and negative charges accelerate in unison, canceling each other's electromagnetic waves.
In order to overcome this cancellation, one needs to shake the molecule in a rather violent manner, so that its electrons would unbind from the protons for a while. This would require a pretty violent collision between hydrogen molecules. Such collisions are exceedingly rare, for two reasons. First, molecules at atmospheric pressure are pretty far apart and collisions are rare: the mean-free path of a molecule in the air is about 100,000 times bigger than the molecule itself. Second, the molecules have fairly small velocities at room temperature, so that collisions aren't violent enough: they can't shake the molecule so much that electrons fly off their orbits around the protons, roughly speaking.
That's why molecular collisions don't produce much absorption and that's why gases at atmospheric pressure absorb and emit light in the form of narrow spectral lines as if the molecules were undisturbed. O2 and N2 lack such spectral lines in the far infrared, so they neither absorb, nor emit radiation in the range relevant to the greenhouse effect. CO2, H2O, and O3 do, which is why they are called the greenhouse gases.
At 8:33 AM,
Joe G said…
oleg, If you have two bodies A and B, if A is radiating 100 watts per square meter at B and B is radiating 50 at A, is there mutual heating or does the heat transfer just go from A to B or B to A?
If body A is the Earth and body B are the greenhouse gases, what is the effect- does the earth get warmer or not?
At 8:35 AM,
Joe G said…
Are you saying that colliding molecules don't produce electromagnetic radiation?
Yes or no
At 9:01 AM,
oleg said…
That's elementary, Watson. Body A is losing 50 watts per square meter in this heat exchange and is thus cooling off, whereas body B is gaining 50 watts per square meter and is thus heating up.
As to the earth and the greenhouse gases, this is not a closed system. Part of the heat released as thermal radiation by the earth escapes into space without being absorbed by the atmosphere. Part of the heat emitted by the atmosphere also escapes into space.
As to your latest question, everything emits thermal radiation (even a black hole). The question is how much. Molecular collisions in the atmosphere are too infrequent and weak to produce a noticeable amount of radiation. Essentially all thermal radiation given off by the earth's atmosphere comes from the greenhouse gases at their spectral lines in the far infrared.
At 9:26 AM,
Joe G said…
OK well it looks as if we agree that greenhouse gases will not warm the earth.
As for O2 and N2 they get heated by convection- do you agree with that? And if you do what happens to the heat they absorbed? Do they keep it? Or do they radiate it?
At 9:40 AM,
oleg said…
No, Joe, we don't agree on the question of greenhouse gases. Without them, the earth's surface would be radiating heat into space directly, with no impediment. Greenhouse gases absorb much of this thermal radiation and partially radiate it back to the surface. As a result, the earth cools off less at night.
As to the question about O2 and N2, they do not emit thermal radiation since they lack spectral lines in the relevant frequency range. However, they can exchange energy with the greenhouse gases through collisions. If CO2 and H2O molecules are moving faster than O2, oxygen will, on average, receive energy in such collisions, and vice versa.
At 10:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Greenhouse gases absorb much of this thermal radiation and partially radiate it back to the surface.
But the surface is hotter than that which is being radiated back to it.
But yes, I get the effect- it is the same as observed in deserts, ie hot days and very cool nights due to the lack of water vapor. Water vapor, not CO2. CO2 is too insignificant to have any effect.
As to the question about O2 and N2, they do not emit thermal radiation since they lack spectral lines in the relevant frequency range.
So they just keep the heat they absorbed until they collide with a greenhouse gas?
At 10:40 AM,
oleg said…
To understand the roles played by different greenhouse gases, look again at Fig. 6.3 of the Georgia Tech paper.
CO2 and H2O block different parts of the thermal spectrum. H2O blocks radiation with wavelengths below 8 microns and above 15 microns. CO2 blocks radiation with wavelengths between 13 and 18 microns. These windows overlap only partially. That is important!
Greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 act like a door and a window in the house. The presence of a large amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is the equivalent of having a closed door. A small concentration of CO2 is equivalent to having a partially open window. Adding more CO2 closes the window a bit more. Less heat escapes from the earth's surface through the 13-15 micron window controlled by CO2.
The effect of CO2 (window) is less significant than that of H2O (door), but it is not negligible.
At 1:22 PM,
William Spearshake said…
150IQ boy, if I am following your reasoning correctly, which is always difficult to follow because it seldom makes sense, you are using the argument that the atmosphere has always had a greenhouse effect, and since it is mostly oxygen and nitrogen, that they are the biggest contributors to this effect.
But human activity is having very little impact on oxygen and nitrogen levels (yet) but we are having a large impact in CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases that are orders of magnitude more significant with respect to their greenhouse effects than oxygen and nitrogen.
Based on your argument, chemical weapons are not a problem because their concentrations in the atmosphere around where they are deployed are a tiny fraction when compared to oxygen and nitrogen. And you can't argue that this is not a good analogy because both oxygen and nitrogen can kill humans as effectively as a neurotoxin depending on their relative proportions.
But I have discovered a correlation that is definitely significant, and probably causative. Both climate change deniers and ID proponents (with remarkable overlap between the two groups) are almost all devout members of the Abrahamic faiths.
At 2:14 PM,
Joe G said…
If the desert is an example it appears that greenhouse gases just allow the night to remain a little warmer.
CO2 @ 400 PPM is insignificant. Also CO2 has increased whereas the global temp trend has flattened.
At 2:17 PM,
Joe G said…
sock puppet- the climate changes- it is what it does. CO2, @ 400ppm, is insignificant and as such has very, very little effect. This is evidence by the fact that CO2 has been increasing yet the global temp has not.
At 2:44 PM,
oleg said…
Joe, can you be a bit more specific and tell us what you mean by "a little warmer?" How many degrees?
At 6:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe, can you be a bit more specific and tell us what you mean by "a little warmer?
Warmer than it would be without water vapor. And not nearly as warm as it was during the day.
How many degrees?
Don't know as I have never measured it, I have just lived it in several different deserts.
At 8:07 AM,
oleg said…
The difference between day and night temperatures is quite large, it can be as many as 10 degrees Celsius or more.
If you can't make that estimate, perhaps you can look up some estimates that are widely available? If not, I can tell you how much.
At 8:24 AM,
Joe G said…
So about 18 degrees F. Wow, from 120 to 102.
At 8:32 AM,
Joe G said…
In Massachusetts we have days that are 30 degrees F or more difference from one day to the next.
At 9:27 AM,
oleg said…
So, not a small number? )
At 11:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Relative to what?
At 8:46 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW a realist wouldn't skew a graph by expanding one axis and compressing the other.
At 12:57 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Realist" is Joe's new word, apparently. Arise, Sir Realist.
At 5:53 PM,
Joe G said…
No, "realist" is just another word that you don't understand the meaning of.
But I did post in the wrong thread-
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
At 4:52 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe: "Frequency = wavelength."
And you are trying to have a serious discussion about physics? Back to school for Koey.
At 6:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Hey dumbass, the shorter the wavelength the higher the frequency and the longer the wavelength the lower the frequency. Frequency is how many complete waves there are per second.
Look it up you ignorant asshole.
At 10:27 AM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe, you clearly made the statement that Frequency = wavelength. Are you denying this? You then proceed with the following:
"Hey dumbass, the shorter the wavelength the higher the frequency and the longer the wavelength the lower the frequency. Frequency is how many complete waves there are per second.
Look it up you ignorant asshole."
You didn't claim that there was a relationship between frequency and wavelength, you claimed that frequency equals wavelength. Based on your argument, from the following equation:
2 x 3 = 6
I can conclude that 2 = 6. After all, the equation for the relationship between wavelength and frequency is the same:
wavelength x frequency = speed of light
Look it up you ignorant asshole.
If you can't understand the concept of simple algebra, there is little wonder that you don't understand why you can have an average global temperature anomaly without requiring the estimation of an average global temperature.
150 IQ my ass.
At 10:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Frequency = wavelength as wavelength determines how FREQUENTLY the wave makes a complete cycle.
You are a major ignoramus.
At 2:21 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe: "Frequency = wavelength as wavelength determines how FREQUENTLY the wave makes a complete cycle.
You are a major ignoramus."
Thank you for the lesson in mathematics.
Frequency x wavelength = speed of light, therefore: Frequency = wavelength.
E = mc^2 therefore: m = c^2
2 x 3 = 6, therefore: 2 = 3.
It is comforting to know that my perception that you are physically incapable of admitting an obvious error has been confirmed, in spades.
At 4:27 PM,
Joe G said…
So wavelength doesn't determine the frequency, then? Really?
At 5:20 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe: "So wavelength doesn't determine the frequency, then? Really?"
Joe, a simple question for you. If x times y equals z, does that mean that x equals y?
It's not a weakness to admit that you were wrong. But we all know that you are too ignorant and pig-headed to admit that a materialist has pointed out an error in your statements.
Are you still insisting that wavelength = frequency? Feel free to keep digging from the bottom of that hole you are in.
At 9:15 PM,
Joe G said…
What are the only possible variables in the equation? If you change the wavelength you change the frequency accordingly. There is a one-to-one correspondence. And it is a derived one-to-one correspondence-> At any given velocity for every wavelength there is one and only one frequency.
Do you understand what that means? Or should I type slower?
At 9:26 PM,
William Spearshake said…
No Joe, we all understand what you are claiming. Based on your twisted logic 2 x 3 = 6 means that 2 = 3.
Please explain why my conclusion is wrong.
You did not say that there is a relationship between wavelength and frequency, which we all know to be true. You said that wavelength = frequency, which any high school student knows to be wrong.
Do you need a longer shovel to get the dirt out of the bottom of the hole you are standing in?
Please use a fraction of that 150 IQ to acknowledge that your original statement was incorrect. Something that anyone who reads this knows.
At 10:17 PM,
Joe G said…
Based on your twisted logic 2 x 3 = 6 means that 2 = 3.
Only a fucking dickhead on an agenda of dickheadedness would say that.
Don't blame me because you are too fucking stupid to understand the concept of a one-to-one correspondence. They teach that in elementary school mathematics.
Perhaps your IQ is too low to grasp such simple concepts...
At 10:33 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe: "Don't blame me because you are too fucking stupid to understand the concept of a one-to-one correspondence. They teach that in elementary school mathematics."
So, you are claiming that mass = the speed of light squared? That is the same one to one relationship that you refer to above.
Do you really have no grasp of basic algebra?
To quote your favourite person, you are such an ignorant asshole.
Do you need a longer shovel? Eventually, you will get to a point where you won't find a shovel long enough.
What does it take for a creationist to admit that a materialist pointed out one of his errors? Devine intervention?
At 8:42 AM,
Joe G said…
So, you are claiming that mass = the speed of light squared?
No asshole. According to Einstein E=MC^2 means that matter and energy are different manifestations of the SAME THING.
And AGAIN:
If you change the wavelength you change the frequency accordingly. There is a one-to-one correspondence. And it is a derived one-to-one correspondence-> At any given velocity for every wavelength there is one and only one frequency.
Do you understand what that means? Or should I type slower?
It is very telling that you are avoiding that at all costs- you are an ignorant coward
At 10:45 AM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe, your original statement was not that wave goth as a one to one relationship with frequency, it was that wavelength EQUALS. Two completely different things. All I have asked is for you to admit that your original statement was incorrect, which is a self evident truism.
For two measures such as this to be equal they must have the same units, which they definitely do not.
Is there something pathological about you that makes it incapable to acknowledge that you made an error. The more you belabour this point, the more foolish you make yourself look, if that is possible.
At 8:53 AM,
Joe G said…
Hey asshole, I have a wave generator- guess what happens when I turn the frequency adjustment knob? The wavelength changes!
If there is a one-to-one correspondence that means they are the same thing. And if they are the same thing then they are equal.
And I challenge you to find a valid reference that refutes what I said- your ignorant spewage won't do.
At 12:00 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe: "If there is a one-to-one correspondence that means they are the same thing. And if they are the same thing then they are equal."
Let's examine this. I will use small words so that you can understand.
Wavelength x Frequency = c; therefore wavelength = frequency?
E = mc^2; therefore mass= the speed of light squared?
You must be half way to China by now.
At 12:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Wavelength x Frequency = c; therefore wavelength = frequency?
No, dumbass. That is a way to check what frequency you have given wavelength X. OR how to determine the wavelength given frequency Y. The velocity is the constant.
E = mc^2; therefore mass= the speed of light squared?
No, assface. The velocity stays on the same side. That means E/M= C^2.
But anyway E=MC^2 is a fucking CONVERSION. How much energy does mass X have?
You are so fucking clueless it is pathetic.
At 2:02 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe: "You are so fucking clueless it is pathetic."
Mr. Webster defines EQUAL as of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation
So, which of these makes wavelength and frequency equal?
Is the centre of the earth really molten?
At 4:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Frequency Y = wavelength X repeated over time T
That is why it is OK for adults to say that frequency = wavelength because adults have a grasp of the English language. And as such we know what the word "frequency" means, especially given the context.
BTW it is lovely watching you avoid all of my thorough rebuttals of your ignorance.
At 4:52 PM,
William Spearshake said…
So Joe, I see that we will have to go back to basics:
1) wavelength x frequency = c
2) this is the same form as X x Y = Z
3) which is the same format as 2 x 3 = 6
Do you agree with this?
Now, if you are claiming that wavelength = frequency, which you are, you are also claiming that 2 = 3.
Please refute this.
At 5:06 PM,
Joe G said…
You are just a cowardly retard. There isn't any hope for you.
X x Y = Z
3 x 3 = 9
3 = 3
Frequency Y = wavelength X repeated over time T
That is why it is OK for adults to say that frequency = wavelength because adults have a grasp of the English language. And as such we know what the word "frequency" means, especially given the context.
BTW it is lovely watching you avoid all of my thorough rebuttals of your ignorance.
At 5:31 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe: "Frequency Y = wavelength X repeated over time T
Sorry Joe. Please play again. Frequency does not include a length dimension. Let's see if you can learn.
Wavelength: SI unit is meter.
Frequency: SI unit is Hz (or s^-1)
So, how is it possible that a dimensional length (eg wavelength) can equal a time interval (eg frequency)?
When you would like to play with the adults, please let me know.
At 5:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Frequency does not include a length dimension.
You are fucking retarded and obviously proud of it:
Frequency = c/ wavelength, so obviously frequency has a wavelength dimension you ignorant little imp.
Frequency Y = wavelength X repeated over time T
That you are too stupid to understand that simple fact proves that you are just too stupid to discuss anything with.
At 6:09 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe: " Frequency = c/ wavelength, so obviously frequency has a wavelength dimension you ignorant little imp."
OK Joe, please solve this equation for units:
Meters x 1/second = meters/second
Does this look familiar? Does it look a bit like:
Wavelength (meters) x frequency (1/seconds) = c (meters/second)
So, genius, where does the length come from in frequency?
At 6:12 PM,
Joe G said…
The relation between wavelength and frequency:
Frequency is how many complete waves go by per second.
Wavelength = one complete wave
At 6:20 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Sorry Joe. Wavelength does not have a time dimension, and frequency does not have a length dimension. It is only when you multiply them together that you get a velocity.
Algebra 101 (10 points higher than your IQ, obviously). Do you really want to keep flogging this dead horse?
At 7:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Geez, asswipe, I just provided a university reference. Here is another site that supports my claim:
Wavelength and frequency
At 7:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Wavelength does not have a time dimension,
So the beginning and end of one wavelength are the same point? The wave doesn't also move through time?
Speed = distance traveled / the time spent. It takes time for one wave to pass.
At 7:11 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe, why don't you grow up and admit that you were wrong? Don't bother answering, I know why
It comes dost to this:
Wavelength = frequency.
Meters = 1/seconds.
Please make this work for me.
At 7:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Strange that I can find a university reference that agrees with me and you have nothing but your ignorance.
But do tell us about the waves that don't take any time to propagate.
At 7:19 PM,
Joe G said…
And another site for me: wavelength vs frequency
Frequency is the term usually refers to number of cycles of the Electro-Magnetic wave per second
You lose, loser
At 7:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Frequency = 1/T, where T is the TIME is takes to complete one wavelength (DISTANCE).
60 Hertz means there are 60 cycles per second.
Distance is traveled over time. Light-year is the DISTANCE light travels in ONE YEAR (TIME).
At 7:51 PM,
Joe G said…
wavelength and frequency:
Light is measured by its wavelength (in nanometers) or frequency (in Hertz).
One wavelength
equals the distance between two successive wave crests or troughs
Frequency (Hertz)
equals the number of waves that passes a given point per second.
At 7:59 PM,
Joe G said…
The ONLY difference between "wavelength" and "frequency" is "wavelength" refers to ONE wave whereas "frequency" refers to repeating waves. Singular vs plural. An individual vs a population of exact clones.
At 8:32 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe: "The ONLY difference between "wavelength" and "frequency..."
Ah ha! Finally. You are admitting a difference between wavelength and frequency. Thank you for admitting that you were in error. It takes a big man to make that admission.
At 9:02 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL!
Wavelength does not have a time dimension, and frequency does not have a length dimension.
Both WRONG!
Frequency does not include a length dimension.
WRONG!
Mr. Webster defines EQUAL as of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation
Having a one-to-one correspondence would mean there is at least a logical denotation- the wavelength denotes the frequency.
Wavelength = frequency per the definition of "equal".
Thank you.
My mistake was minor and only a "mistake" to anal retentive fuck-wits like you
At 10:11 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Joe: "My mistake was minor and only a "mistake" to anal retentive fuck-wits like you"
Joe, I am proud of you. I know that this was a big step for you. Why was it so hard to admit the obvious?
At 5:52 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! You are proud of me because you are an anal retentive fuck-wit and obviously an ignorant asshole?
OK.
Regardless, wavelength = frequency
Post a Comment
<< Home