[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are no ideal gases.

Noble gases are pretty close approximation at low enough temperature and pressure.
At high enough temperature, ionizations break the approximation down.
At high enough pressure, electromagnetic interactions among many gas atoms also break the approximation down.

[Bored chemist]

But the heat capacity is not actually a constant

What makes it change?

Go and read the thread again.
I already answered that and I'm not wasting even more time repeating myself just because you are lazy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I was going to query how such a simple question could expand to 38 pages and still appear to be alive.

Other seemingly simple question such as morality has been going and alive among philosophers for thousands of years.
Depending on the level of understanding details we want to achieve, and the robustness of definitions, we can discuss about other simple and fundamental terms such as mass and time for as long as we like.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Go and read the thread again.

Do you mean this?

Sort of, because the energy levels are quantised.
For a cold diatomic gas like nitrogen there's not enough to excite vibrations and so the only contributions to the heat capacity are translation and rotation.
That's 3 translational degrees and 2 rotational ones (rotation about the axis between the centres of the two atoms doesn't count) making 5 in total
When the gas is hot there is enough energy to get the molecules vibrating and that adds some more degrees of freedom into which energy can be placed.

That adds another degree of freedom , making 6 in total.

So the calculated heat capacities under those conditions are 2.5kT and 3 kT

But, at an intermediate temperature  some, but not all, of the molecules will have enough energy to induce vibrations.
And under those conditions the average number of degrees of freedom will be somewhere between 5 and 6.

What determines the required energy to excite vibrations?
How does these degrees of freedom affect temperature of liquids and solids?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I was going to query how such a simple question could expand to 38 pages and still appear to be alive. However having scanned a number of pages I do see education at work, albeit at a snail's pace. I have one small addition from the early pages: the op referenced Jean Piere Robitaille, this guy is a notorious crank and not a scientist. He is a medic of some description, an anaesthetist as far as I remember.

I searched for online sources about him.

https://medicine.osu.edu/find-faculty/clinical/radiology/pierre-marie-robitaille-phd
Pierre Marie Robitaille, PhD
Professor, Department of Radiology

Background
I joined the Department of Radiology in 1989. At the time, my research centered on spectroscopic methods, with a focus on the experimental and theoretical aspects of nuclear magnetic resonance and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). I devoted considerable attention to NIH-funded spectroscopic analysis of in-vivo cardiac metabolism in the normal and failing heart, using both 13C- and 31P- NMR methods. I also focused on the development of new instrumentation for MRI. This included the design and assembly of the first torque compensated asymmetric gradient coil.

From 1995-2000, I was responsible for conceiving and assembling, at Ohio State, the world's first ultra high field clinical MRI system. This 8 Tesla/80cm MRI system was utilized to acquire many of the highest resolution images in existence. At the same time, early results with this instrument prompted a reconsideration of RF power requirements in MRI and of signal to noise. In turning my attention to these problems, I initially sought to consider NMR is a "thermal" process. In the early days of this modality, the T1 relaxation time was also known as the "thermal" relaxation time. This would lead to a detailed study of Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission, a topic on which I have subsequently published extensively.

Kirchhoff's Law stands at the very heart of spectroscopic analysis, not only in medicine, but also in fields as seemingly remote as astronomy.  For me, revisiting Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission has resulted in questioning many established ideas in astronomy, including the origin of the microwave background and, most importantly, the nature of the sun itself. That is because the standard model of the sun, relies on the validity of Kirchhoff's Law, in order to justify a gaseous state. Conversely, if Kirchhoff's Law is not valid, then the sun cannot be a gaseous in nature. Along these lines, I have recently advanced forty lines of evidence that the sun is comprised of condensed matter.

He recently published a new video here, called "Responding to Loose Ends!"

If you found any flaws in his methodology, or his results, you can share them so more people can scrutinize more thoroughly.

[Bored chemist]

"Conversely, if Kirchhoff's Law is not valid, then the sun cannot be a gaseous in nature"
But we know it is a gas, so we know the law is valid.
This is a surprise to nobody except cranks because Kirchhoff's radiation law is just a special case of the conservation of energy.
I'm not sure there's any point to watching a video by a guy who either doubts, or fails to understand the conservation of
 energy.
This isn't making me think better of him.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille

[Bored chemist]

What determines the required energy to excite vibrations?

E= h ν

[Origin]

He recently published a new video here, called "Responding to Loose Ends!"

The guy is a major crank, this is from Rationalwiki:
In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans.[note 1]

He also maintains that the sun is not a ball of plasma but is, in fact, made of liquid metallic hydrogen. None of his ideas have been accepted by any reputable physics publication.

edit:  I see Bored Chemist already brought up Rationalwiki.

[paul cotter]

I just noticed I got his first name wrong, apologies for my error. Unfortunately his bullshit remains intact.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

When you discuss a topic and everyone agrees, the conversation often dies out quickly. But when you disagree, you're putting yourself in opposition to what was said, and the discussion continues. Paul Graham, a computer engineer, therefore proposed a “Hierarchy of Disagreement” in 2008. Learn at which level you are able to articulate your disagreement. Hopefully it’s not just name-calling or responding to tone.

CHAPTER
00:00 Opening quotes and statement
00:52 Introduction
01:19 Graham's hierarchy of disagreement
01:32 Level 1: Name-calling
01:48 Level 2: Ad hominem
02:14 Level 3: Responding to tone
02:41 Level 4: Contradiction
03:08 Level 5: Counterargument
03:41 Level 6: Refutation
04:13 Level 7: Refuting the central point
05:05 Benefit of knowing the form of argument
06:06 What do you think?
06:58 Patrons credits
07:07 Ending

When we disagree, it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.

[Bored chemist]

it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.

So... do you need me to point out that I posted a refutation of his point, or can you work that out for yourself?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.

So... do you need me to point out that I posted a refutation of his point, or can you work that out for yourself?

Feel free to write down your reasoning here.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's an interesting video related to this topic.

[Bored chemist]

it would be helpful to identify the level of our disagreement.

So... do you need me to point out that I posted a refutation of his point, or can you work that out for yourself?

Feel free to write down your reasoning here.

Feel free to answer my question.

do you need me to point out that I posted a refutation of his point,

This may help you; it's the bit where I posted a refutation of the point made.

"Conversely, if Kirchhoff's Law is not valid, then the sun cannot be a gaseous in nature"
But we know it is a gas, so we know the law is valid.
This is a surprise to nobody except cranks because Kirchhoff's radiation law is just a special case of the conservation of energy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Feel free to answer my question.

That was my answer.

Feel free to write down your reasoning here.

"Conversely, if Kirchhoff's Law is not valid, then the sun cannot be a gaseous in nature"
But we know it is a gas, so we know the law is valid.
This is a surprise to nobody except cranks because Kirchhoff's radiation law is just a special case of the conservation of energy.

How do you know that it's a gas?

[Bored chemist]

How do you know that it's a gas?

At over 5000C what else could it be?

But my point is that anyone who doubts Kirchhoff's law is doubting the conservation of energy and thus not trustworthy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

At over 5000C what else could it be?

It depends on the pressure.
Low pressure hot gases produce line emission spectra. That's not what we observe from sunlight.
Instead, what we get is line absorption spectra, which are produced by cool low pressure gases, with black body-like spectrum as the backlight.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But my point is that anyone who doubts Kirchhoff's law is doubting the conservation of energy and thus not trustworthy.

There must be some reasons to accept or reject an assertion if we want to make our beliefs reasonable.
There must be some reasons to accept or reject an evidence alleged to support or oppose an assertion.

[alancalverd]

The black/white video skated over the elephant in the room! Skin temperature is regulated by perspiration and blood flow,* pretty much independent of ambient, if your clothing is reasonably insulating - which a robe certainly is because it traps a lot of air.   


*blood being cooled by evaporation in the lungs if the external skin surface is insulated.

[Bored chemist]

There must be some reasons to accept or reject an assertion if we want to make our beliefs reasonable.

Yes, and, in the case of  Kirchhoff's laws and the conservation of energy we have both  practical experience and mathematical proof.
So, anyone who thinks it might be wrong is clearly not a good judge of things.
Not believing it is unreasonable.
That's my point.
What are you trying to argue about?