C'mon don't give him idiotic ideas. He is confused and bitter enough the way it is.
Yes, thank heavens for the vacuum. If it weren't for the vacuum we would have nothing.
All right, dazzling brilliance or a monster? Which one is sarcasm?
Ah yes, you substitute vitriol for scientific understanding. Always changing the subject to gravity. Can't you find another way to digress. That is getting stale.
Sorry. I'm trying to think of a funny retort, but there are too many to decide on.
The CMB is a continuum of frequencies. The detector is resonantly tuned to sample various frequencies of that continuum. The samples are compared to a black-body curve. Look at the site I gave ianC. Where do you think the dots on the graph came from?
So you have a bad memory in addition to not being very bright. Here is a better explanation than I could give you although it is probably way over your head as well..
The Cosmic Microwave Radiation (CMB) shows a blackbody spectrum of temperature 2.725 K
peaking at a wave length of about 0.2 cm beyond the far infrared spectrum. CMB is detected by radio-telescopes by resonance like radio antennas resonating with incoming radio waves thus generating a weak electrical signal which can be amplified into detection.
It would be difficult to detect CMB by thermal IR-imaging since the signal is very weak and thermal detection would require a detector at lower temperature than 2.725 K.
The concept of Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the cold atmosphere to the warm Earth surface plays a key role in CO2 alarmism. CMB is here presented as an ultimate form of DLR with the argument that a picture of CMB shows that DLR is real. If even the cold dark space is contributing to global warming, then global warming must be real, right?
Let us now scrutinize this argument in the setting of mathematical model of blackbody radiation studied in Computational Blackbody Radiation, in the case of a radio-telescope as CMB-detector. The model takes the form of set oscillators with damping (see here for some more details)
where the subindices indicate differentiation with respect to space x and time t, and
- Utt−Uxx−γUttt−h2Uxxt=f
where γ represents the constant in Planck's radiation law and h represents a smallest mesh size, connected to dissipative losses as outgoing radiation and internal heating, respectively.
- Utt−Uxx represents the oscillators in a wave model
- −γUttt is a dissipative term modeling outgoing radiation
- −h2Uxxt is a dissipative modeling internal heating
- f is incoming forcing/microwaves,
Microwaves are characterized by low frequency and long wave length (compared to visible and
infrared light) and in this case the dissipative loss of internal heating is small and is not detectable while the resonance can be detected after amplification just like a radio antenna is capable of detecting a weak radio wave by resonance followed by amplification.
Pictures of CMB are thus produced by an IR-camera in the form of a radio-telescope which works by resonance and not radiative heating. A CMB picture can therefore not be used as evidence that the weak glow of CMB acts as in a weak form of radiative heating named DLR or backradiation. This is because the CMB picture is not obtained from detection of radiative heating, but from resonance and amplification.
We conclude that a CMB picture is not any evidence of DLR, because no DLR is detected.
More bitter juvenile retorts. Is that all you got? Sad.
So you have a bad memory in addition to not being very bright. Here is a better explanation than I could give you although it is probably way over your head as well..
The Cosmic Microwave Radiation (CMB) shows a blackbody spectrum of temperature 2.725 K
peaking at a wave length of about 0.2 cm beyond the far infrared spectrum. CMB is detected by radio-telescopes by resonance like radio antennas resonating with incoming radio waves thus generating a weak electrical signal which can be amplified into detection.
It would be difficult to detect CMB by thermal IR-imaging since the signal is very weak and thermal detection would require a detector at lower temperature than 2.725 K.
The concept of Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the cold atmosphere to the warm Earth surface plays a key role in CO2 alarmism. CMB is here presented as an ultimate form of DLR with the argument that a picture of CMB shows that DLR is real. If even the cold dark space is contributing to global warming, then global warming must be real, right?
Let us now scrutinize this argument in the setting of mathematical model of blackbody radiation studied in Computational Blackbody Radiation, in the case of a radio-telescope as CMB-detector. The model takes the form of set oscillators with damping (see here for some more details)
where the subindices indicate differentiation with respect to space x and time t, and
- Utt−Uxx−γUttt−h2Uxxt=f
where γ represents the constant in Planck's radiation law and h represents a smallest mesh size, connected to dissipative losses as outgoing radiation and internal heating, respectively.
- Utt−Uxx represents the oscillators in a wave model
- −γUttt is a dissipative term modeling outgoing radiation
- −h2Uxxt is a dissipative modeling internal heating
- f is incoming forcing/microwaves,
Microwaves are characterized by low frequency and long wave length (compared to visible and
infrared light) and in this case the dissipative loss of internal heating is small and is not detectable while the resonance can be detected after amplification just like a radio antenna is capable of detecting a weak radio wave by resonance followed by amplification.
Pictures of CMB are thus produced by an IR-camera in the form of a radio-telescope which works by resonance and not radiative heating. A CMB picture can therefore not be used as evidence that the weak glow of CMB acts as in a weak form of radiative heating named DLR or backradiation. This is because the CMB picture is not obtained from detection of radiative heating, but from resonance and amplification.
We conclude that a CMB picture is not any evidence of DLR, because no DLR is detected.
I don't think so. As weird as he is, Claes is the smarter one.
True, but perhaps others that reach an even lower bar are the ones that give a "Winner" rating to crap posts that they don't even understand.
