Kirchhoff’s Law Proven Invalid, The Implications Are Enormous

reply to post by Bedlam


There are rebels and pioneers for change in every system.

Thankfully, there are always going to be those, in every field who know the law is an ass, and will direct and apply themselves in alternative ways.

Without those people in science, we'd be very much poorer.

MysterX
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Without those people in science, we'd be very much poorer

But without mechanisms to filter out the Blondlots and Reichs, we'd have religion instead of science. Luckily, the system works well to filter out cranks.

Very nice original post. I don't like all the ungrounded ad-hom replies in the rest of the thread, but I for one, will take a look at this video when I get home and read the source material.

There is a large community within the ATS community that will not let anyone question anything about current scientific paradigms. I experienced that personally in one of the very few threads I created on ATS about some mistakes Einstein may have made in the past.

Great care is taken to derail any such thread a.s.a.p and attention from the subject matter at hand diverted by ungrounded, biased attacks on everything except the subject matter itself.

I'm not saying that the proposed idea is correct or even has the slightest merit; I can't tell that just now, but I wanted to let the OP know there are some people who actually are genuinely interested in new scientific ideas and don't judge a book by the cover. Keep up the good work!

MysterX


If so...it is about bloody time this obvious fact was woken up to.

The Universe didn't create these scientific laws...Human being did, and Human beings are not anywhere near as infallible as we'd like to think we are.

IMO, they should be called postulates rather than Laws

RationalDespair
There is a large community within the ATS community that will not let anyone question anything about current scientific paradigms.

I would say there is a large community within the ATS community unquestioningly support pseudo-scientists because they become attached to philosophically pleasing (but ultimately flimsy and unfounded) ideas. These pseudo-scientists (and their supporters) want to have the scientific seal of approval on their pet ideas but aren't prepared to have them held to close scientific scrutiny. Instead of engaging with the scientific community they become gun-shy when they are met with rightful skepticism and claim their ideas are being attacked or ignored. You can't have it both ways, either you abide by the scientific method (and all that comes with it) where your ideas live or die by results, replication and informed discussion or you don't. You can't present hyperbolic, sensationalized ideas such as the OP's and then cry foul when people question the major red flags hanging over them. You don't get to pick what parts of the scientific method you want to abide by and ignore the rest, that's just unscientific.

1) What are Robitaille's actual claims?

2) Are Robitaille's claims correct or incorrect?

3) Why ?

GetHyped

RationalDespair
There is a large community within the ATS community that will not let anyone question anything about current scientific paradigms.

These pseudo-scientists (and their supporters) want to have the scientific seal of approval on their pet ideas but aren't prepared to have them held to close scientific scrutiny.

Fair enough, but I was talking about this thread in particular, in which not a single reply is justified by using close scientific scrutiny. All I hear is "peer review this, pseudo-science that, cranks, nutters, flat earthers, electric universe supporter", etc., which have nothing to with the matter being presented. Also, I clearly pointed out that I had no opinion on the OP's subject yet, but that I was willing to have an objective look. And that is exactly what the established scientific community openly refuses. How do you expect any progress at all without having an open mind?

reply to post by RationalDespair


This post pretty much sums up why no one is engaging the OP like you desire as well as explains why the OP is hookum:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bedlam

GetHyped

I did wonder why OP was pushing this so hard yet there was no other coverage or discussion elsewhere.

Notice how carefully it was avoided in the OP, by the OP. The first clue was the OP's post that said "Because Planck’s constant formulates the basis for quantum physics, and because Planck’s Law of Thermal Emission is based on KLTE, and because Stefan’s Law of Thermal Emission is based on Planck and Boltzmann constants, virtually all the standard models describing astrophysical objects are invalid...", I immediately said "Whups, the OP and this dude are EU", and a bit of Googling proved it in terms of Robitaille.There's other crankdom that Robitaille belongs to. I'll leave it to the interested to ferret it out. I'd be surprised if he retains his tenure.

I haven't looked at his bonafides, maybe he's got a doctorate from Trinity College and University like Bearden.

An astronomer named Stoddard has a succinct descr


ption of the journal that Robitaille publishes in:
"Progress in Physics is one of several internet sites where people who have failed to show the discipline required to publish in scientific journals come together to create a pretend journal. Their declaration of Scientific Human Rights is a charter for anyone to call themselves scientists irrespective of qualification and to publish their thoughts as if they had gone through the scientific process. Inevitably, they have not and the results are either purposely over complicated statements of the obvious shrouded in jargon to make it appear to be a deep understanding, replications of simple undergraduate tasks presented as new science or, as we have here, obviously wrong hypotheses masquerading as suppressed scientific truth. I remember one author of such a journal complaining he had been rejected on an article where he presented equations showing the Earth should be expanding “just” because satellite data proved him wrong…"https://kendalastronomer.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/do-the-oceans-create-the-cosmic-microwave-background/

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


No expert on Kirchoff or Planck but in good company here where most of the replies don't seem to want to engage the subject either.

Prof. Robitaille states that, as a result, Planck came to see the graphite particle as a catalyst, when in fact, it was acting as a perfect absorber.

From what I understand of Kirchoff, emission was/is independent of input. Watched the video but am not getting where graphite was ever a catalyst. (Unless in some micro-mini internal way.)

Absorption is being more and more proven i.e. stealth:

Carbon nanotube

Recently there has been some work done at the University of Michigan regarding carbon nanotubes usefulness as stealth technology on aircraft. It has been found that in addition to the radar absorbing properties, the nanotubes neither reflect nor scatter visible light, making it essentially invisible at night, much like painting current stealth aircraft black except much more effective.

So just asking for a simple explanation of how graphite was considered a catalyst so that I can continue to review your OP which is very interesting.

RationalDespair
Very nice original post. I don't like all the ungrounded ad-hom replies in the rest of the thread, but I for one, will take a look at this video when I get home and read the source material.

There is a large community within the ATS community that will not let anyone question anything about current scientific paradigms.

That's not true. We just object, rightly, to those who "question" without good evidence and, most importantly, with profound ignorance of the experimental evidence supporting the current scientific paradigm, the depth of theoretical work supporting it, and the ignorance of the implications of their alternative description.

Just take a look here: recognition of the difference between spectra of real objects and idealized black body has been known for nearly a century.

en.wikipedia.org...

Blackbody is a good first order approximation, but every planetary and astrophysical scientist knows it's just an approximation.

RationalDespair

GetHyped

RationalDespair
There is a large community within the ATS community that will not let anyone question anything about current scientific paradigms.

These pseudo-scientists (and their supporters) want to have the scientific seal of approval on their pet ideas but aren't prepared to have them held to close scientific scrutiny.

Fair enough, but I was talking about this thread in particular, in which not a single reply is justified by using close scientific scrutiny. All I hear is "peer review this, pseudo-science that, cranks, nutters, flat earthers, electric universe supporter", etc., which have nothing to with the matter being presented. Also, I clearly pointed out that I had no opinion on the OP's subject yet, but that I was willing to have an objective look. And that is exactly what the established scientific community openly refuses. How do you expect any progress at all without having an open mind?

edit on 11/4/2014 by RationalDespair because: typo

Alright, you want to talk physics? Here we go. Quote from the original post

Kirchhoff and Planck should have considered the perfectly reflecting case as a separate valid case, yet they did not. This serious error resulted in Kirchhoff and Planck believing that their equations could be applied universally. Consequently, Planckian radiation is dependent on the nature of the radiating object.

This is a "no # Sherlock" moment. Actual scientists have known about the physical properties which influence emissivity into non black body spectra for decades. That the 'perfectly reflecting case' doesn't obey a Planckian black body spectrum is plainly obvious because in that case the electromgnetic radiation in the cavity is NOT in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding wall. That perfect absorption is necessary is hardly news, it was the entire point of the derivation: the result of equilibrium between heat vibration in the walls and the modes of electromagnetism result in Planck spectra.

In sum, the original crank thinks he has discovered a 'flaw' which all scientists have known since the beginning.

mbkennel

RationalDespair

GetHyped

RationalDespair
There is a large community within the ATS community that will not let anyone question anything about current scientific paradigms.

These pseudo-scientists (and their supporters) want to have the scientific seal of approval on their pet ideas but aren't prepared to have them held to close scientific scrutiny.

Fair enough, but I was talking about this thread in particular, in which not a single reply is justified by using close scientific scrutiny. All I hear is "peer review this, pseudo-science that, cranks, nutters, flat earthers, electric universe supporter", etc., which have nothing to with the matter being presented. Also, I clearly pointed out that I had no opinion on the OP's subject yet, but that I was willing to have an objective look. And that is exactly what the established scientific community openly refuses. How do you expect any progress at all without having an open mind?

edit on 11/4/2014 by RationalDespair because: typo

Alright, you want to talk physics? Here we go. Quote from the original post

Kirchhoff and Planck should have considered the perfectly reflecting case as a separate valid case, yet they did not. This serious error resulted in Kirchhoff and Planck believing that their equations could be applied universally. Consequently, Planckian radiation is dependent on the nature of the radiating object.

This is a "no # Sherlock" moment. Actual scientists have known about the physical properties which influence emissivity into non black body spectra for decades. That the 'perfectly reflecting case' doesn't obey a Planckian black body spectrum is plainly obvious because in that case the electromgnetic radiation in the cavity is NOT in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding wall. That perfect absorption is necessary is hardly news, it was the entire point of the derivation: the result of equilibrium between heat vibration in the walls and the modes of electromagnetism result in Planck spectra.

In sum, the original crank thinks he has discovered a 'flaw' which all scientists have known since the beginning.

That's simply a flat out lie. Standard theory does not treat the introduction of carbon as a necessary absorber. It treats it as a transducer. I noticed you ignored his points about the emissivity of gas and the convection of liquids too.

AnarchoCapitalist



That's simply a flat out lie. Standard theory does not treat the introduction of carbon as a necessary absorber. It treats it as a transducer.

I don't know what this means.

Do you understand the physics of what's happening? Electromagnetism in a highly reflective cavity is linear and therefore initial conditions persist. However thermal motion of atoms is chaotic, there is nonlinearities in the bouncing and jostling, and this chaos which results in the influence of initial state being discarded, and you end up in a thermodynamic equilibrium.

Adding an high-quality absorber to the cavity means that the electromagnetism which was previously in a microcanonical conservative ensemble without chaos is now coupled to motion of atoms and their charges which does have chaos which results in thermal equilibrium, and this type of motion is not strongly dependent on the specific properties of the material, but is thermodynamically universal. The point of the blackbody spectrum is to figure out what that means in a coupled electromagnetic system plus chaotic system in thermal equilibrium, and this revealed the correct quantum mechanical interaction between the electromagnetic modes and the absorber/emitter. EM radiation of varying spectral density goes in, hits some of the carbon which vibrates and through that vibration of the electrons on its surface re-emits radiation back into the cavity with an altered spectrum. Follow that many times and see when you get to a stationary state of power spectral density, and you get the black body spectrum.

Now of course real substances don't all behave like carbon black which is why not everything in the world is black---the interaction of electromagnetism with the electrons in the individual atoms on the outside has specific resonant properties thanks to laws of quantum mechanics, and this atom-and-molecule-specific behavior is present in addition to the general thermal motion which has universal substance-independent properties. Those particular resonant properties do not strongly couple to the general thermal motion and therefore equilibrate the incoming electromagnetic radiation into chaotic thermal motion, but re-emit back approximately at the same frequency from a localized process.

And yes, if those substances are placed in a perfectly reflecting cavity, the equilibrium spectrum won't be a blackbody.

Make a cube of mirrors, and put a green marble inside. Funny it will look green plus a spectral background corresponding to the temperature but so what? And gee how do those LEDs and flourescent lights and lasers have non-blackbody spectra?

I noticed you ignored his points about the emissivity of gas and the convection of liquids too.

I'll rectify that omission. They're either reiteration of known physics fact which presents no actual problem, or, bovine scatology.

Here's an example of the second:

Because Planck’s constant formulates the basis for quantum physics, and because Planck’s Law of Thermal Emission is based on KLTE, and because Stefan’s Law of Thermal Emission is based on Planck and Boltzmann constants,

Yes

virtually all the standard models describing astrophysical objects are invalid.

No.

The only time those “laws” are valid is when the cavity they describe is the interior of a perfect blackbody object, which is never the case in reality. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow. I mean, what if the astrophysicists ever hook up a spectrometer to their telescopes? What happens if they find spectra of stars which are not a perfect blackbody? What will they ever do? What if there is some influence from the atomic physics of the substances involved? Oh of course not, they've never thought of that possibility for a hundred years, but fortunately an intrepid Internet warrior is here to correct the errors of their religious faith in Planckian blackbodies.

BTW. I wonder if Max Planck ever looked a painting, amazing how that paint is all at the same temperature and yet those flowers look like they have different colors! Surely the foundations of quantum mechanics were obviously bogus back in 1900.

So the science was flawed, someone called this a law, it stuck, no one noticed for years and it turns out this isn't a law after all..

Gee.. sounds like Religion of Science is alive and well with dogma. If those people didn't have their emotional investments in this experiment they might have seen clearly to get it right to begin with - but no.. this is how science works - it's not about science anymore it's about what geek has the bigger stick. These unscientific practices are still going on today. Proof people use science as a religion to further their agendas.

I'm just gonna open up my own Church now called the Church of Science because at least that way, these guys can be finally legit. Call a spade a spade.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

You probably didn't understand the comment immediately above yours, since you seem to have completely misunderstood what's happening here, but let me simplify it for you.

A man saying he found objects which don't behave like perfect black bodies is like saying you found out that light doesn't travel at the speed of light in glass.

Science is perfectly aware of these discrepancies and they are consistent with current models. We don't expect light to travel at the speed of light anywhere but a vacuum just as we don't expect objects which aren't perfect black bodies to behave like perfect black bodies. The "discrepancies" he points out are well known and it makes him look rather ignorant to say these observations disprove the models.

reply to post by mbkennel


I see this more of the sort of intentional just-so misinterpretation that Creation Scientists do. The sort where the end result is drawings of Jesus riding a dinosaur.

This is an Electric Universe dino Jesus piece. It's why you avoid advocacy science.

Bedlam
reply to post by mbkennel

 

I see this more of the sort of intentional just-so misinterpretation that Creation Scientists do. The sort where the end result is drawings of Jesus riding a dinosaur.

This is an Electric Universe dino Jesus piece. It's why you avoid advocacy science.

That's pretty funny coming form a guy who believes science has proven the universe simply appeared out of nothing 15 billion years ago then expanded into infinite nothing at the speed of light, while simultaneously creating all the elements in the universe from nothing.

You also believe that infinitely dense matter exists. Not just "really" dense, but infinitely dense. Division by Zero dense.

You also believe that 95% of the universe is composed of matter and energy that we can't see and we can't detect!

You also believe that there are stars out there so dense that they are composed of matter that violates the island of stability in nuclear chemistry.

You believe that certain stars can spin around on their axis so fast that their equator is rotating at nearly the speed of light. Further, you believe that these stars can emit a focused beam of energy across galactic distances all while spinning around on their axis at nearly the speed of light. Oh, and you believe these VISIBLE stars are actually no bigger than a large asteroid.

You believe that the planets were formed by dusty plasma coming together in a GRAVITATIONAL collapse. You believe this, even though all of the planets and moons in our own solar system vary vastly in composition from each other. So you also believe that this gravitational collapse of planet formation must have somehow also naturally separated the elements through gravity?

You believe that more than three dimensions exist, or maybe you don't, your theories are rather vague on this one. Perhaps multi-dimensional "strings" are tying the universe together!

YET

YET

YET

You mock the Jesus people for believing some guy who died 2000 years ago was a Son of God, and that a supreme creator is responsible for the existence of the universe.

I'm not a religious person at all. But by golly, I'll believe in Jesus before I believe in your line of total BS.

The humble pistol shrimp proves conventional science is a joke. And the temperature of the bubble reaches the temperature of the sun's corona, but the claw stays cool. Its cavitation. Keeley's Secret. Walter Russel. Thunderbolts. However, Tesla didn't quite see eye to eye with the current crop of Electric Universe theorists who don't like to see multiverse.

But the pistol shrimp is pretty much the wayshower. Not sure how they missed it.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


"Hey, look everybody, science PROVES Kirchhoff’s Law Proven is invalid. My belief system has been vindicated!"

"The overwhelming body of science says otherwise"

"The science is wrong! THE SCIENCE IS WRONG!"

OP, you don't get to cherry pick the bits of science you find comforting and discard the rest as it suits you.