The moronic trolling bigot Chris L Peterson [email protected]

Previously I stated "All matter emits radiation unless it is at zero kelvin.
"
Moron Peterson disputes this by simple assertion, but consider:
a warm body loses heat through radiation and gains heat through
radiation, as we've noticed when the sun shines and heats the planet.
If the Earth did not radiate all the heat it receives from the Sun it's
temperature would climb as it absorb more energy than it radiated.
Therefore any body with a temperature above zero degrees kelvin
will radiate as much radiant energy as it absorbs from any external
source or become so hot it glows and radiates anyway.
Perhaps Moron Bigot Peterson has some magic trick to prevent this
from happening and will disclose his genius to the rest of the world.

"Androcles" wrote in message news:...

"Dave Typinski" wrote in message
...
Sam Wormley wrote:

ROTATION MAY SOLVE COSMIC MYSTERY
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...cosmic_mystery
snip
Within 2 to 3 billion years, the gravitational pull would remove many
stars from the
lower-mass dwarf, D'Onghia says. Because dark matter does not rotate, it
would be left
behind in the dwarf galaxy.

Dark matter doesn't rotate? I thought dark matter was simply mass
that didn't emit radiation.

All matter emits radiation unless it is at zero kelvin. Dork matter
was invented to account for the "too fast" rotation of galaxies.
Local galaxies have no dork matter, only far off galaxies do.
Hic sunt draconis.

Actually it's quite simple.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
As the star orbits the galaxy the speed of the light it emits remains
constant with respect to the star. Therefore it must vary with respect
to us, the observers, according to the principle of relativity and
no aether to wave in.
For *most* of the period, the light appears red-shifted and the star
appears to be moving slower than it actually is: dT/dt 1.
For a very short while, the light is blue-shifted and the star appears
to move faster than it actually is: dT/dt 1. Thus the galaxy as a whole
is assumed to be moving away and contain dork matter, based on
the absurd assumption that the speed of light only has one value, c,
in all frames of reference.

--Androcles.

Did you know pencils bend when you put them in water?
Look, you can see they do:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/brokpen.jpg
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -
Galileo Galilei


Now it's imbued with the capability to
remain fixed in space while stuff embedded in it rotates? Wouldn't
that violate the equivalence principle (gravitational mass with zero
inertial mass)?
--
Dave

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:13:50 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

Previously I stated "All matter emits radiation unless it is at zero kelvin.
"
Moron Peterson disputes this by simple assertion, but consider:
a warm body loses heat through radiation and gains heat through
radiation...

I realize you have neither the wits nor scientific literacy to
understand what I'm saying, but I'll provide this for those who come to
this forum with a genuine interest in science:

There are at least two kinds of matter in the Universe, usually called
"ordinary" and "dark". What you're describing is correct for ordinary
matter, but not for dark matter, which does not interact with EM (or
interacts so weakly that we can't yet detect that interaction). Thus it
is incorrect to say that _all_ matter emits radiation when it is warmer
than 0K.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jul 25, 8:13*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
Previously I stated "All matter emits radiation unless it is at zero kelvin.
"
Moron Peterson disputes this by simple assertion, but consider:
a warm body loses heat through radiation and gains heat through
radiation, as we've noticed when the sun shines and heats the planet.
If *the Earth did not radiate all the heat it receives from the Sun it's
temperature would climb as it absorb more energy than it radiated.
*Therefore any body with a temperature above zero degrees kelvin
will radiate as much radiant energy as it absorbs from any external
source or become so hot it glows and radiates anyway.
Perhaps Moron Bigot Peterson has some magic trick to prevent this
from happening and will disclose his genius to the rest of the world.



"Androcles" wrote in message news:...

"Dave Typinski" wrote in message
.. .
Sam Wormley wrote:

ROTATION MAY SOLVE COSMIC MYSTERY
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...Rotation_may_s....
snip
Within 2 to 3 billion years, the gravitational pull would remove many
stars from the
lower-mass dwarf, D'Onghia says. Because dark matter does not rotate, it
would be left
behind in the dwarf galaxy.

Dark matter doesn't rotate? *I thought dark matter was simply mass
that didn't emit radiation.

All matter emits radiation unless it is at zero kelvin. Dork matter
was invented to account for the "too fast" rotation of galaxies.
Local galaxies have no dork matter, only far off galaxies do.
Hic sunt draconis.

Actually it's quite simple.
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
As the star orbits the galaxy the speed of the light it emits remains
constant with respect to the star. Therefore it must vary with respect
to us, the observers, according to the principle of relativity and
no aether to wave in.
For *most* of the period, the light appears red-shifted and the star
appears to be moving slower than it actually is: dT/dt 1.
For a very short while, the light is blue-shifted and the star appears
to move faster than it actually is: dT/dt 1. Thus the galaxy as a whole
is assumed to be moving away and contain dork matter, based on
the absurd assumption that the speed of light only has one value, c,
in all frames of reference.

--Androcles.

Did you know pencils bend when you put them in water?
Look, you can see they do:
*http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/brokpen.jpg
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -
Galileo Galilei

Now it's imbued with the capability to
remain fixed in space while stuff embedded in it rotates? *Wouldn't
that violate the equivalence principle (gravitational mass with zero
inertial mass)?
--
Dave

That was a master-stroke of Wormley to crosspost between SAA and
sci.physics,much like mixing acid with poison along with the old Uncle
Al trick of re-directing posts.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:13:50 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

Previously I stated "All matter emits radiation unless it is at zero
kelvin.
"
Moron Peterson disputes this by simple assertion, but consider:
a warm body loses heat through radiation and gains heat through
radiation...

I realize you have neither the wits nor scientific literacy to
understand what I'm saying, but I'll provide this for those who come to
this forum with a genuine interest in science:

There are at least two kinds of matter in the Universe, usually called
"ordinary" and "dark". What you're describing is correct for ordinary
matter, but not for dark matter, which does not interact with EM (or
interacts so weakly that we can't yet detect that interaction). Thus it
is incorrect to say that _all_ matter emits radiation when it is warmer
than 0K.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

This raises a couple of questions for me ....

1. The equations for black body radiation do not involve the physical nature
of the radiating body. Are you claiming that a macroscopic body composed of
DM would not emit radiation as per the black body equations?

2. On the other side ... I have always just accepted bb radiation as a fact
of hot bodies. Now I have to think about this. I assume that the coupling
between heat and EM derived from the existence of charged particles
(electrons and atomic nuclei) in the radiating body which ultimately accept
EM waves, turn them into electric potential (physical separation of positive
and negative charges) which re-appears as thermal energy, and vice versa.
Note that this is all mediated by charged particles being accelerated by the
E component of the EM wave, or in reverse the acceleration of charged
particles causing EM waves. Thinking about it, how does this work for
neutron starts, which have no charged particles? They absorb and emit bb
radiation, right? If so, what is the physical mechanism for the exchange of
energy between an EM wave and uncharged matter?

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:45:36 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

This raises a couple of questions for me ....

1. The equations for black body radiation do not involve the physical nature
of the radiating body.

Don't they? The equations rely on the emissivity of a material, which is
surely a parameter that describes its physical nature. A true black body
has an emissivity of one. Anything less and the equations become
approximations, or otherwise need modification. So what do you have if
dark matter has an emissivity of zero?

As an additional complication, can DM have a temperature above 0K? I
don't know the answer to that, but if it doesn't absorb any EM, how is
energy transferred to it? By definition, a black body absorbs 100% of
the EM that hits it. Nearly by definition, DM absorbs none.

Are you claiming that a macroscopic body composed of
DM would not emit radiation as per the black body equations?

I think that describes the commonly accepted viewpoint, where DM is
assumed to consist of non-baryonic particles. There's certainly no
evidence

2. On the other side ... I have always just accepted bb radiation as a fact
of hot bodies. Now I have to think about this. I assume that the coupling
between heat and EM derived from the existence of charged particles
(electrons and atomic nuclei) in the radiating body which ultimately accept
EM waves, turn them into electric potential (physical separation of positive
and negative charges) which re-appears as thermal energy, and vice versa.
Note that this is all mediated by charged particles being accelerated by the
E component of the EM wave, or in reverse the acceleration of charged
particles causing EM waves. Thinking about it, how does this work for
neutron starts, which have no charged particles? They absorb and emit bb
radiation, right? If so, what is the physical mechanism for the exchange of
energy between an EM wave and uncharged matter?

I'm not sure of the answer here, but my first thought is that the
mechanism depends on force carriers, but is not necessarily limited to
simple charged particles.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:45:36 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

This raises a couple of questions for me ....

1. The equations for black body radiation do not involve the physical
nature
of the radiating body.

Don't they? The equations rely on the emissivity of a material, which is
surely a parameter that describes its physical nature. A true black body
has an emissivity of one. Anything less and the equations become
approximations, or otherwise need modification. So what do you have if
dark matter has an emissivity of zero?


Emissitivity doesn't affect black-body radiation. What it does affect is how
much of the EM energy that is incident upon it is absorbed as heat.

Pick a simple example - glass. Transparent, emissivity zero. Heat it up to
5000K and it still glows white hot. Similar deal for the gasses in
fluorescent tubes.

Indeed, a completely white object - reflects all light - still glows only
red hot if heated in a dark oven.


As an additional complication, can DM have a temperature above 0K? I
don't know the answer to that, but if it doesn't absorb any EM, how is
energy transferred to it? By definition, a black body absorbs 100% of
the EM that hits it. Nearly by definition, DM absorbs none.


Well, if you are talking about individual particles in space, then one
observer's temperature is just another observer's relative kinetic energy.

If DM consists of more than one particle bound together, then it can
certainly have a temperature, being the difference between the kinetic
energy of the object as a whole and the kinetic energy of the constituent
particles.


Are you claiming that a macroscopic body composed of
DM would not emit radiation as per the black body equations?

I think that describes the commonly accepted viewpoint, where DM is
assumed to consist of non-baryonic particles. There's certainly no
evidence



Why does "non-baryonic" matter? Is there something in the formulation of BB
radiation that is somehow tied to baryons?


2. On the other side ... I have always just accepted bb radiation as a
fact
of hot bodies. Now I have to think about this. I assume that the coupling
between heat and EM derived from the existence of charged particles
(electrons and atomic nuclei) in the radiating body which ultimately
accept
EM waves, turn them into electric potential (physical separation of
positive
and negative charges) which re-appears as thermal energy, and vice versa.
Note that this is all mediated by charged particles being accelerated by
the
E component of the EM wave, or in reverse the acceleration of charged
particles causing EM waves. Thinking about it, how does this work for
neutron starts, which have no charged particles? They absorb and emit bb
radiation, right? If so, what is the physical mechanism for the exchange
of
energy between an EM wave and uncharged matter?

I'm not sure of the answer here, but my first thought is that the
mechanism depends on force carriers, but is not necessarily limited to
simple charged particles.

I suspect that DM woule emit BB radiation if it was hot, the same as
everything else does. Its just that (if it exists) is consists of individual
particles - which cannot have a temperature in the traditional sense, or its
all floating around in space and very cold, or it does emit BB radiation and
we can observe it, its just that we incorrectly ascribe the radiation to
normal matter.

Hell, for all we really know, the Sun could be 10% DM, and 10% of the BB
radiation we see from the Sun could be caused by DM.

As to the nature of the physical coupling between heat energy and BB
radiation ... maybe someone else here can enlighten us.



_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

oriel36 wrote:


That was a master-stroke of Wormley to crosspost between SAA and
sci.physics,much like mixing acid with poison along with the old Uncle
Al trick of re-directing posts.


Once again you are mistaken. The cross posting was by the OP, not SW
(who has not yet participated in this thread).

On Jul 26, 3:48*pm, Jim Newman wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

That was a master-stroke of Wormley to crosspost between SAA and
sci.physics,much like mixing acid with poison along with the old Uncle
Al trick of re-directing posts.

Once again you are mistaken. The cross posting was by the OP, not SW
(who has not yet participated in this thread).

Try this thread I was refering to as an extension of this thread -

'ROTATION MAY SOLVE COSMIC MYSTERY '

Wormley couldn't generate interest in 'dark' this and that or any
other of the empirical junk in saa alone so now he attaches
'sci.physics' when he does it,fine as far as I am concerned,
considering it is all speculative junk which has gone flat very
quickly.

I do not know how you numbskulls manage to ignore the entire history
of clocks,longitude and planetary dynamics in order to arrive at the
wrong value for daily rotation and subsequently the incorrect
information regarding planetary shape and dimensions which are
contained in the correct 24 hour/360 degree value.I am considered mad
for promoting that the Earth turns 15 degrees every hour while
everyone else disagrees and that is the true madness.

I have been correct and especially where astronomy and planetary
dynamics is concerned while none of you have ever been right due to
the ideas of people you follow.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:14:49 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Emissitivity doesn't affect black-body radiation. What it does affect is how
much of the EM energy that is incident upon it is absorbed as heat.

But emissivity does affect black body radiation. It is the ratio of
energy emitted to energy absorbed, and provides that link to physical
materials you were questioning.

Pick a simple example - glass. Transparent, emissivity zero. Heat it up to
5000K and it still glows white hot. Similar deal for the gasses in
fluorescent tubes.

Glass has a very high emissivity- over 0.9. If you want a material with
low emissivity, you have to look to something very reflective. Of
course, if you can manage to heat such a material up, it will still emit
radiation. But it becomes very hard to actually heat it up.

Gases don't normally show black body radiation unless they are under
very high pressure- much higher than found in fluorescent tubes. The
light you see there is coming from atomic emission lines, which are also
broadened by high temperatures.

If you had a material with an emissivity of zero, it would not convert
any absorbed radiation into black body radiation.

Indeed, a completely white object - reflects all light - still glows only
red hot if heated in a dark oven.

Only because there is no such thing as a material that reflects all the
radiation striking it, over the range of input wavelengths your dark
oven produces.

Well, if you are talking about individual particles in space, then one
observer's temperature is just another observer's relative kinetic energy.

Yes, but particles are not black body radiators. For that, you need the
object size to exceed the wavelength of the emitted radiation. For cold
bodies, this can become very large. The CMB is 1.9mm wavelength, so you
won't see it emitted by dust.


If DM consists of more than one particle bound together, then it can
certainly have a temperature, being the difference between the kinetic
energy of the object as a whole and the kinetic energy of the constituent
particles.

DM is assumed to be cold, in part because it can't absorb EM. So what
mechanism is left to heat it up? Of course, if it somehow carried heat,
what mechanism would allow it to cool down? Since it doesn't interact
with EM, it shouldn't be able to radiate, either. Maybe it's hot and we
can't tell, because it doesn't radiate.

Of course, even if it did radiate, we wouldn't see if unless it was in a
form that was large compared to the long wavelength of cold radiation-
millimeters.

Why does "non-baryonic" matter? Is there something in the formulation of BB
radiation that is somehow tied to baryons?

Yes. Black body radiation is observed and described for a class of
particles. Electrons, neutrinos, and other non-baryonic particles do not
behave the same as baryonic material. Assuming (as most do) that DM is
made up of some type of non-baryonic material, there is no reason to
expect it to interact with EM the same way baryonic matter does.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 26, 3:48 pm, Jim Newman wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

That was a master-stroke of Wormley to crosspost between SAA and
sci.physics,much like mixing acid with poison along with the old Uncle
Al trick of re-directing posts.
Once again you are mistaken. The cross posting was by the OP, not SW
(who has not yet participated in this thread).

Try this thread I was refering to as an extension of this thread -

'ROTATION MAY SOLVE COSMIC MYSTERY '

So why reply in /this/ thread (which is neither about, nor started by,
nor contributed to by the subject of your response)?

A serious question. Why this thread?