tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post8477992776271731311..comments2024-03-01T18:58:48.605-08:00Comments on What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.: Regarding Bob Armstrong claims - seeking technical information - updated 12/30/15citizenschallengehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-32611991973370228352015-12-28T20:20:59.646-08:002015-12-28T20:20:59.646-08:00Anyone cognizant of Armstrong's claims can eas...Anyone cognizant of Armstrong's claims can easily see that his "science" amounts to nothing. <br /><br />He repeatedly makes elementary errors, such as writing down equations whose units don't balance. He doesn't understand Kirchoff's law of radiation, and he misapplies it. And more.<br /><br />I've read Armstrong's presentation at a Heartland Institute conference more closely than anyone in the world. And I've been pointing out the flaws there for at least a year and a half. <br /><br />Armstrong won't even discuss these flaws or address criticisms of his calculations. He simply won't address them, as if that keeps him right. He prefers to pretend he doesn't hear these criticisms, so he can pretend this work is perfect. It is anything but -- it contains basic flaws that even a high school senior would not make.<br /><br />Bob Armstrong won't address basic criticisms. He is stubborn. But I am more stubborn than him, and won't stand for his insults of science and of scientists.<br /><br />David Appell<br />http://www.davidappell.com<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-3070253516948368092015-12-27T16:14:06.152-08:002015-12-27T16:14:06.152-08:00You could always write about Armstrong's game?...<br />You could always write about Armstrong's game?<br />; - )<br /><br />send a link this way.<br /><br />cheers.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-35908635951920060252015-12-27T09:08:48.022-08:002015-12-27T09:08:48.022-08:00Oh man, what'd you go and do that for? Now I ...Oh man, what'd you go and do that for? Now I need to write something new!<br /><br />Thanks for the link though!Johnny Vectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00443676804460912826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-54089881996421354182015-12-27T08:15:24.285-08:002015-12-27T08:15:24.285-08:00I looked up Johnny Vector and see that he has his ...I looked up Johnny Vector and see that he has his own blog,<br />skimming through a few articles I see it's far ranging and fun reading.<br /><br />In one he presents the classic question regarding Alarmists:<br />"Is it “alarmism” to yell fire in a crowded theatre if the building is in fact on fire? <br />And you’ve come to realize the basement is full of gasoline tanks?"<br /><br />check it out<br /> <a href="http://www.kevland.com/blog/" rel="nofollow">www.kevland.com/blog</a>citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-18165057655588327382015-12-27T07:50:00.842-08:002015-12-27T07:50:00.842-08:00John, Thank you for taking the time to share that ...John, Thank you for taking the time to share that information.<br /><br />"But if so he has rather seriously cocked up the terminology, to the point of being just wrong."<br />Yup, that's what happenings when amateurs fancy themselves smarter than professionals.<br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-38700752942598275252015-12-27T05:10:00.002-08:002015-12-27T05:10:00.002-08:00Well I'll start with the last one. "rati...Well I'll start with the last one. "ratio of the dot products of source and object spectra" is meaningless gibberish. <br /><br />First off, a dot product, like a regular numerical (scalar) product, is two things multiplied together. Likewise a ratio involves two inputs. So, either he means the dot product of source and object spectra, in which case there is only one input to his ratio, or he means the ratio of (source spectrum • something) to (object spectrum • something), in which case what are the somethings?<br /><br />But more importantly, a dot product is the product of two vectors, and a spectrum is not a vector. You might sloppily call it a vector when writing code to manipulate it, because your high-performance processor operates on vectors and will also operate on arrays that are not actually vectors but look like them. But it's not a vector, so you can't take a dot product. Now, if you pretend two spectra are vectors, and do the same math as the dot product (multiplying corresponding points together and adding up the sum), you have calculated the cross-correlation at zero lag. It's possible this is what he's talking about, since the radiative input to an isolated object in a radiation field depends on both the spectrum of the radiation and the absorption spectrum of the object. But if so he has rather seriously cocked up the terminology, to the point of being just wrong. Not to mention the fact that the relationship of the absorption spectrum to the radiation spectrum is indeed one of the first things you learn about when studying radiative physics. It is, for instance, the absolute basis of all spacecraft thermal engineering.Johnny Vectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00443676804460912826noreply@blogger.com