Is Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission settled science?
 

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: On the Validity of Kirchhoff's Law | EU2014 - YouTube

"Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics.
He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands.
A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille
was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998.
In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics,
demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. "



Funny YouTube Comment:
"
So Kirchoff's Law was the original leap into mathematical abyss..
..into the physical world as seen through soot coated glasses."




~~~

If Pierre-Marie is correct, and much of what we 'know' about the thermal Emissivity
of items like CO2 & water vapor isn't exactly correct,
what's going to happen to all the years of 'climate change' research
that used equations in computer-modeling programs,
that were based on Kirchhoff's junk science?

This post could have some value if the degree of error of Kirchhoff's theorem was included.

But since you are including the quote above, it would therefore follow that if Xringer ever posted anything that was not completely, free of error, it therefore follows that Xringer's mind is junk, and his posting should all be regarded as the same.

To be honest, I suspected it to be so all along.

-AC

I'm just reading this stuff.. Thinking it might be something new.
I think it's a relatively newly published finding.

The work has been going on for some time..
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...9/PP-19-01.PDF
Since 2009 at least..

As one headline said, "Kirchhoff’s Law Proven Invalid, The Implications Are Enormous".

I'm waiting to hear from a physicist friend.. Maybe he will debunk the idea..

Physics is like law... the answer you get depends on the context and who you ask.

In my searches I came across items about ice-cores..
I was just reading a pdf: "180 Years accurate CO2 - Gasanalysis of Air
by Chemical Methods (Short version)"..

There seems to be a big difference between Ice-core CO2 measurements
and those made over many years, using other collection methods.

There is also this item, waiting to be read.. Antarctic Ice Cores: The Sample Rate Problem | Watts Up With That?
'the merits of ice cores vs. plant stomata as paleo-CO2 measurements. '

Almost midnight..
Later..

Got a reply from my friend.. He thinks Kirchhoff’s Law is safe..
He's pretty much sold on the Big Bang..

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of Physics.

If you had said the same thing about philosophy or economics or statistics, or sociology or (shudder) religion, I'd certainly agree.

I wouldn't ever say that physics is like law, no... I'd say that physics is The Law.

For sure, there are people who don't understand it, and there are people who misinterpret it, but that is not to marginalize Physics, it is to be skeptical of people speaking with partial understanding.

Now, human understanding of the laws of the universe is surely evolving, and when Physics is no longer perceived to be in accord with the laws of the universe, extremely rigorous proof is required before there is a change in consensus.

And when that happens, the universe shakes.

-AC