BBC to reduce deniers coverage

[SSDD]

Ah, yes. Resorting to ad hominem attack when you know you are wrong.
You resort to reinventing physics when you it doesn't fit with your own preconceived idea.

Here is the scientific definition again.

Spontaneous emission is the process in which a quantum mechanical system (such as an atom, molecule or subatomic particle) transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state (e.g., its ground state) and emits a quantum in the form of a photon.

For example, ... there are different forms of luminescence ... fluorescence ... phosphorescence...​

​

And on and on and on it goes. Grasping at straws...grabbing at any shiny object. Desperately searching for something...anything that will help you prove your failed point.

I can only suppose it became clear to you that the term spontaneous process and anything associated with it was not going to work for you, so now you have latched on to spontaneous emission a if that were going to work any better.

It is clear that you have no scientific background and little, if any scientific education. You are a poser who is handy with language but who possesses no real depth of understanding of that language.

There is a reason that the second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from a low energy object to a higher energy object...it can't happen via spontaneous process and it can't happen via spontaneous emission. I suppose you don't realize that spontaneous emission is nothing more than a more targeted definition os spontaneous process.

This is where your lack of any real knowledge on the topic becomes glaringly obvious and the fact that you are just grasping at straws...any straw is highlighted in stark relief.

If you are taking about spontaneous processes, the flip side is non spontaneous processes. If you want to talk about spontaneous emission, then the flip side is stimulated emission. Clearly you didn't even bother to look and see if there was a flip side...that whole abject lack of knowledge thing standing in your way and all.

Had you bothered to look, you would have learned that phosphorescence, fluorescence, and every form of luminescence (a very vague term) you might have learned that these are stimulated emissions...not spontaneous emissions. You latched on to the term spontaneous emission with no understanding of what it actually means.

Stimulated emission is the process by which an incoming photon of a specific frequency can interact with an excited atomic electron (or other excited molecular state), causing it to drop to a lower energy level. The liberated energy transfers to the electromagnetic field, creating a new photon with a phase, frequency, polarization, and direction of travel that are all identical to the photons of the incident wave.

Sounds a lot like spontaneous emission except that spontaneous emissionT occurs at random intervals without regard to the ambient electromagnetic field.

Flourescence, of the types of luminescence you noted is the one that is most obviously a stimulated emission. fluorescent materials produce light instantly when atoms inside them absorb energy from a passing EM field (like an electric current), become excited, and return to normal, emitting a photon in the process, all in a tiny fraction of a second.

Fluorescent materials require an outside electrical field...usually a simple electric current. Ergo...stimulated emission...not spontaneous emission. Cut the current and the light goes off shortly thereafter.

Then there are the fluorescent materials like paint, or ink. They absorb energy from certain frequencies of light, become excited, and emit photons of visible light. Switch off the light source and the light show is over. Stimulated emission, stimulated by the external light source.

Phosphorescent materials behave in much the same way as fluorescent materials, but there is usually a longer delay between the time they absorb energy and the time they give off light. Sometimes the phosphorescent materials give off light for fractions of a second and sometimes they give off light for hours, as is the case with your radium watch markers...you have to shine a light on them in order to make them glow...given time, the become dimmer and dimmer till they are no longer visible and require an external light source in order to "recharge". Stimulated emission.

Here are some other types of luminescence so that we don't have to go through the tedious process of you grabbing for every straw in the whole pile.

Bioluminescence - This is made by living creatures...fireflies, glow worms, various marine creatures. The energy to fuel the luminescence is derived from the food they eat. Kill the creature and eventually the luminescence fades and goes out. Stimulated emission.

Chemoluminescence - The energy that provides the light is the result of a chemical reaction. Glow sticks. Crack the glass, shake it up and you get light. But as the chemical reaction runs its course, the energy is used up and the light stick inevitably goes out. Stimulated emission.

Electroluminescence - Already covered...flourescent lights, neon lights etc, Stimulated emission.

Photoluminescence - Already covered....paints, inks, etc. Stimulated emission.

Rontgenoluminesence - The energy that provides the light is X-rays. Turn of the X-ray and the light show is over. Stimulated emission.

Sonoluminescence - In this instance, the energy that produces the light is provided by energetic sound waves usually passed through liquids.

Thermoluminescence - Photons emitted from hot materials...the energy is provided by heat which is usually the result of physical processes. Stimulated emission

Triboluminescence - This sort of luminescence is the result of scratching, rubbing, or physically deforming certain sorts of crystals. The energy is the result of the work expended in rubbing, scratching, or deforming the crystals. Stimulated emission.

If you want to talk about science you must use the scientific definitions.

Here is a clue for you. Knowing the definition isn't enough if you want to talk about science...you also need to have some idea of what that definition means. If that were the case, then we wouldn't have to go through this whole process of you grabbing at every available straw....or in the case of toddster...the only straw he seems to have available..the corona of the sun.

If you understood, even rudimentarily what the definitions mean, then you could apply them to your arguments themselves and see that they fail. I would wager that you were completely ignorant of the term stimulated emission. I mean, if you knew the term, and had even the least inkling of what it meant, you should have been able to grasp that practically any form of luminescence you care to name is the result of stimulated emission.

If you did know, and proceeded with your argument anyway, that would make you a bald faced liar who is perfectly willing to say anything for no other purpose than to trick someone into joining you in your lie. Is that a better description of what you are up to?

The above definition says nothing about what preceded the observation of luminescence.

You are exhibiting an abject failure to understand. You have no idea what you are talking about. You see a thing that will help you and you run with it with no understanding of what you are running with. In this case, and the case of that idiot flashlight example you are running with scissors.

Here is the deal. Take heed if you have a lick of intelligence. There is a reason that spontaneous energy movement from low energy objects to high energy objects resides within the halls of large number statistics. The idea is that if enough of X happens, then some small portion is bound to be Y. True, we never saw it, and can't measure it, but it is bound to happen...so sayeth the statistics of large numbers.

It is that belief that will allow an otherwise intelligent human being to state with a straight face that if you have enough monkeys and enough typewriters, and enough time, they will eventually produce the works of shakespeare. News flash...it isn't going to happen. You only need one typewriter...Add monkeys and time and eventually they might evolve into something that could be capable of producing the works of shakespeare, but then they won't be monkeys any more.

There are no observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from a low energy objects to higher energy objects...there is only the prediction made by the statistics of large numbers. This means that you will never, ever, ever find an example of energy moving spontaneously from low energy to high energy objects. If we could see it, and measure it then the statistics would not be necessary to justify the concept.

Be smart....give it up. Simply acknowledge that what you believe is based on a statistical prediction...probabilities.... and nothing that has ever, nor will ever be observed in reality.

Tearing down all the arguments that you should never have put up in the first place if you were anything like as intelligent as you try to make yourself appear has grown tedious....and the more complex your arguments become, the more obvious it will become that you really don't have a clue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah, yes. Resorting to ad hominem attack when you know you are wrong.
You resort to reinventing physics when you it doesn't fit with your own preconceived idea.

Here is the scientific definition again.

Spontaneous emission is the process in which a quantum mechanical system (such as an atom, molecule or subatomic particle) transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state (e.g., its ground state) and emits a quantum in the form of a photon.

For example, ... there are different forms of luminescence ... fluorescence ... phosphorescence...​

​

And on and on and on it goes. Grasping at straws...grabbing at any shiny object. Desperately searching for something...anything that will help you prove your failed point.

I can only suppose it became clear to you that the term spontaneous process and anything associated with it was not going to work for you, so now you have latched on to spontaneous emission a if that were going to work any better.

It is clear that you have no scientific background and little, if any scientific education. You are a poser who is handy with language but who possesses no real depth of understanding of that language.

There is a reason that the second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from a low energy object to a higher energy object...it can't happen via spontaneous process and it can't happen via spontaneous emission. I suppose you don't realize that spontaneous emission is nothing more than a more targeted definition os spontaneous process.

This is where your lack of any real knowledge on the topic becomes glaringly obvious and the fact that you are just grasping at straws...any straw is highlighted in stark relief.

If you are taking about spontaneous processes, the flip side is non spontaneous processes. If you want to talk about spontaneous emission, then the flip side is stimulated emission. Clearly you didn't even bother to look and see if there was a flip side...that whole abject lack of knowledge thing standing in your way and all.

Had you bothered to look, you would have learned that phosphorescence, fluorescence, and every form of luminescence (a very vague term) you might have learned that these are stimulated emissions...not spontaneous emissions. You latched on to the term spontaneous emission with no understanding of what it actually means.

Stimulated emission is the process by which an incoming photon of a specific frequency can interact with an excited atomic electron (or other excited molecular state), causing it to drop to a lower energy level. The liberated energy transfers to the electromagnetic field, creating a new photon with a phase, frequency, polarization, and direction of travel that are all identical to the photons of the incident wave.

Sounds a lot like spontaneous emission except that spontaneous emissionT occurs at random intervals without regard to the ambient electromagnetic field.

Flourescence, of the types of luminescence you noted is the one that is most obviously a stimulated emission. fluorescent materials produce light instantly when atoms inside them absorb energy from a passing EM field (like an electric current), become excited, and return to normal, emitting a photon in the process, all in a tiny fraction of a second.

Fluorescent materials require an outside electrical field...usually a simple electric current. Ergo...stimulated emission...not spontaneous emission. Cut the current and the light goes off shortly thereafter.

Then there are the fluorescent materials like paint, or ink. They absorb energy from certain frequencies of light, become excited, and emit photons of visible light. Switch off the light source and the light show is over. Stimulated emission, stimulated by the external light source.

Phosphorescent materials behave in much the same way as fluorescent materials, but there is usually a longer delay between the time they absorb energy and the time they give off light. Sometimes the phosphorescent materials give off light for fractions of a second and sometimes they give off light for hours, as is the case with your radium watch markers...you have to shine a light on them in order to make them glow...given time, the become dimmer and dimmer till they are no longer visible and require an external light source in order to "recharge". Stimulated emission.

Here are some other types of luminescence so that we don't have to go through the tedious process of you grabbing for every straw in the whole pile.

Bioluminescence - This is made by living creatures...fireflies, glow worms, various marine creatures. The energy to fuel the luminescence is derived from the food they eat. Kill the creature and eventually the luminescence fades and goes out. Stimulated emission.

Chemoluminescence - The energy that provides the light is the result of a chemical reaction. Glow sticks. Crack the glass, shake it up and you get light. But as the chemical reaction runs its course, the energy is used up and the light stick inevitably goes out. Stimulated emission.

Electroluminescence - Already covered...flourescent lights, neon lights etc, Stimulated emission.

Photoluminescence - Already covered....paints, inks, etc. Stimulated emission.

Rontgenoluminesence - The energy that provides the light is X-rays. Turn of the X-ray and the light show is over. Stimulated emission.

Sonoluminescence - In this instance, the energy that produces the light is provided by energetic sound waves usually passed through liquids.

Thermoluminescence - Photons emitted from hot materials...the energy is provided by heat which is usually the result of physical processes. Stimulated emission

Triboluminescence - This sort of luminescence is the result of scratching, rubbing, or physically deforming certain sorts of crystals. The energy is the result of the work expended in rubbing, scratching, or deforming the crystals. Stimulated emission.

If you want to talk about science you must use the scientific definitions.

Here is a clue for you. Knowing the definition isn't enough if you want to talk about science...you also need to have some idea of what that definition means. If that were the case, then we wouldn't have to go through this whole process of you grabbing at every available straw....or in the case of toddster...the only straw he seems to have available..the corona of the sun.

If you understood, even rudimentarily what the definitions mean, then you could apply them to your arguments themselves and see that they fail. I would wager that you were completely ignorant of the term stimulated emission. I mean, if you knew the term, and had even the least inkling of what it meant, you should have been able to grasp that practically any form of luminescence you care to name is the result of stimulated emission.

If you did know, and proceeded with your argument anyway, that would make you a bald faced liar who is perfectly willing to say anything for no other purpose than to trick someone into joining you in your lie. Is that a better description of what you are up to?

The above definition says nothing about what preceded the observation of luminescence.

You are exhibiting an abject failure to understand. You have no idea what you are talking about. You see a thing that will help you and you run with it with no understanding of what you are running with. In this case, and the case of that idiot flashlight example you are running with scissors.

Here is the deal. Take heed if you have a lick of intelligence. There is a reason that spontaneous energy movement from low energy objects to high energy objects resides within the halls of large number statistics. The idea is that if enough of X happens, then some small portion is bound to be Y. True, we never saw it, and can't measure it, but it is bound to happen...so sayeth the statistics of large numbers.

It is that belief that will allow an otherwise intelligent human being to state with a straight face that if you have enough monkeys and enough typewriters, and enough time, they will eventually produce the works of shakespeare. News flash...it isn't going to happen. You only need one typewriter...Add monkeys and time and eventually they might evolve into something that could be capable of producing the works of shakespeare, but then they won't be monkeys any more.

There are no observed, measured examples of energy moving spontaneously from a low energy objects to higher energy objects...there is only the prediction made by the statistics of large numbers. This means that you will never, ever, ever find an example of energy moving spontaneously from low energy to high energy objects. If we could see it, and measure it then the statistics would not be necessary to justify the concept.

Be smart....give it up. Simply acknowledge that what you believe is based on a statistical prediction...probabilities.... and nothing that has ever, nor will ever be observed in reality.

Tearing down all the arguments that you should never have put up in the first place if you were anything like as intelligent as you try to make yourself appear has grown tedious....and the more complex your arguments become, the more obvious it will become that you really don't have a clue.

There is a reason that the second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from a low energy object to a higher energy object.

It doesn't say that.

Why is it said that all matter above 0K radiates and not all matter above 0K radiates, unless it "sees" warmer matter?

​

It is clear that you have no scientific background and little, if any scientific education. ​

Did you feel the same way about Professor Raeder? LOL!​

​

Then there are the fluorescent materials like paint, or ink. They absorb energy from certain frequencies of light, become excited, and emit photons of visible light. Switch off the light source and the light show is over. Stimulated emission, stimulated by the external light source.​

This sounds a bit like the walls of my home when they're warmed up, indirectly, by my furnace.
Except for the visible photons. As long as the walls are above 0K, they can emit photons of IR, even toward my warmer skin.

What do you think?​

 

[Wuwei]

And on and on and on it goes.......

Ah, again, the usual bitter, venomous ad hominem.

Almost none of your voluminous post is true. You are again taking precisely defined terms of physics, misunderstanding them and misusing them by attaching colloquial definitions.

To return to the science definitions, google the phrase, “difference between spontaneous and stimulated emission”. You will find many pages of top notch references that will explain the difference.

Basically both phenomena involve how an atom or molecules in an excited state loses its energy

Spontaneous emission is when it randomly loses it's energy by emission of a photon.

Stimulated emission is when an outside resonant photon induces it to loose it's energy. The result is that two photons of identical frequency and phase are output. See the hyperphysics site for stimulated emission and a picture of one photon in and two out.

None of the processes you mentioned have two photons of identical frequency and phase output!

The most well known process that actually is stimulated emission and does have two photons of identical frequency output from each atom is the laser, and you didn't mention that!

There are many examples of spontaneous emission showing energy flowing spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Next time, try to calm down and think about actual science terms and not colloquial terms before you write anything.

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't say that.

Of course it does...am I surprised that you don't know that? Not in the least.

And by the way...the law you are referencing is the Stefan Boltzman law...not the second law of thermodynamics...

 

[SSDD]

Almost none of your voluminous post is true. You are again taking precisely defined terms of physics, misunderstanding them and misusing them by attaching colloquial definitions.

All of my post is precisely true. What is false is your "understanding".

The bottom line is that you are grasping...and have grasped on to yet another loser.

Luminescence requires an outside energy source in order to continue...electrical currents for flourescence...chemical energy for chemiluminescence, nutrients for bioluminescence...light for phosphorescence,...turn off the supply of energy and you turn off the lights. Stimulated emission...not spontaneous emission. Sorry guy..you lose again and the sad f'ing thing is that you don't even seem to be bright enough to acknowledge it.

Tell you what bullwinkle...go learn something...and in doing so, learn that spontaneous energy movement between low energy objects and higher energy objects exists entirely within the realm of statistical possibility...but never ever ever EVER shows itself in the real world...

Then come back here and apologize for using up so much of my time in explaining things to you that you would have known yourself if you had bothered to even try to learn something rather than simply grasping at shiny objects you hoped would help you prove an invalid point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn't say that.

Of course it does...am I surprised that you don't know that? Not in the least.

No, it really doesn't say that.

I'm curious, why did a professor of physics in a prestigious university, who you originally used to back up your claims, say that a hotter body can absorb a photon coming from a colder body?

Do you have any sources that dispute his claim?

The US is a free country, you are entitled to take on an entire field of science.
But you have to admit, you're alone in your claims.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Almost none of your voluminous post is true. You are again taking precisely defined terms of physics, misunderstanding them and misusing them by attaching colloquial definitions.

All of my post is precisely true. What is false is your "understanding".

The bottom line is that you are grasping...and have grasped on to yet another loser.

Luminescence requires an outside energy source in order to continue...electrical currents for flourescence...chemical energy for chemiluminescence, nutrients for bioluminescence...light for phosphorescence,...turn off the supply of energy and you turn off the lights. Stimulated emission...not spontaneous emission. Sorry guy..you lose again and the sad f'ing thing is that you don't even seem to be bright enough to acknowledge it.

Tell you what bullwinkle...go learn something...and in doing so, learn that spontaneous energy movement between low energy objects and higher energy objects exists entirely within the realm of statistical possibility...but never ever ever EVER shows itself in the real world...

Then come back here and apologize for using up so much of my time in explaining things to you that you would have known yourself if you had bothered to even try to learn something rather than simply grasping at shiny objects you hoped would help you prove an invalid point.

If you have sunlight hitting fluorescent materials at room temperature, are the photons released by these room temperature materials allowed to travel in the direction of the Sun?

 

[Wry Catcher]

No more BBC platform for climate change deniers? It’d be about time | Richard Black

From time to time the BBC gets itself into an awful mess over climate change. Unnecessarily so, given that it has visited and revisited principles of good coverage, repeatedly arriving at more or less the same conclusions.

Back in 2007, a report for the BBC Trust, then the corporation’s regulator, concluded that the old bipolar world of “the climate change debate” had gone. The working model had to change, as the title put it, From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel : “the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should.” Four years later, the Trust’s review of accuracy and impartiality in science coverage , commissioned from geneticist Professor Steve Jones, reached very similar conclusions.

Both reports were accepted by BBC managers. Both contain much that is common sense. And then there are the editorial guidelines, which are very clear that the guiding principle is “due impartiality”, rather than equal weight.



Everyone is entitled to a point of view but it should be backed by facts to get a plaform..

There is no common sense in blocking opposing viewpoints..

Correct, navigation maps need to include those from the flat earth society.

SARCASM ALERT

 

[Wuwei]

All of my post is precisely true.

No. The only thing true is the definition you copied from somewhere in your post 121. I agree with that definition.

Stimulated emission is the process by which an incoming photon of a specific frequency can interact with an excited atomic electron (or other excited molecular state), causing it to drop to a lower energy level. The liberated energy transfers to the electromagnetic field, creating a new photon with a phase, frequency, polarization, and direction of travel that are all identical to the photons of the incident wave. ​

Rather than simply more insults, why don't you talk about science and explain why you think that bioluminescence of a jellyfish is caused by a photon of a specific frequency interacting with a molecule and emitting a new photon identical to the first. (That is according to the definition you posted.) That is how lasers work. Not jellyfish.

Also in post 117 you said,

Radium is manufactured commercially by the electrolysis of their molten salts...what exactly do you think is spontaneous about that? ​

Please explain why you think that radium in it's natural state decays spontaneously while purified radium does not decay spontaneously. In doing so this time, try to use the physics definition of spontaneous decay, not an irrelevant colloquial definition. All physics books say radioactivity undergoes spontaneous decay.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Almost none of your voluminous post is true. You are again taking precisely defined terms of physics, misunderstanding them and misusing them by attaching colloquial definitions.

All of my post is precisely true. What is false is your "understanding".

The bottom line is that you are grasping...and have grasped on to yet another loser.

Luminescence requires an outside energy source in order to continue...electrical currents for flourescence...chemical energy for chemiluminescence, nutrients for bioluminescence...light for phosphorescence,...turn off the supply of energy and you turn off the lights. Stimulated emission...not spontaneous emission. Sorry guy..you lose again and the sad f'ing thing is that you don't even seem to be bright enough to acknowledge it.

Tell you what bullwinkle...go learn something...and in doing so, learn that spontaneous energy movement between low energy objects and higher energy objects exists entirely within the realm of statistical possibility...but never ever ever EVER shows itself in the real world...

Then come back here and apologize for using up so much of my time in explaining things to you that you would have known yourself if you had bothered to even try to learn something rather than simply grasping at shiny objects you hoped would help you prove an invalid point.

If you have sunlight hitting fluorescent materials at room temperature, are the photons released by these room temperature materials allowed to travel in the direction of the Sun?

You never answered.

Why you scared bro?

 

[Wuwei]

If you have sunlight hitting fluorescent materials at room temperature, are the photons released by these room temperature materials allowed to travel in the direction of the Sun?

I think I can answer that for him using his view of physics:

If a fluorescent mushroom spontaneously falls off a tree into the sun, it won't radiate to the sun because energy doesn't move to a hotter object spontaneously.

However, if you pick the mushroom off the tree and purposely move it into the sun, it will radiate to the sun because it isn't spontaneous, it is stimulated emission which was stimulated by you.

 

[SSDD]

Like I said...anyone who thinks they have observed energy (of any type) moving spontaneously from a lower to a higher energy state is wrong...usually because they just aren't bright enough to figure out what they are seeing, or they forget the whole spontaneous part. You have demonstrated that you failed at both. congratulations. Call the US patent office and tell them you have observed energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like I said...anyone who thinks they have observed energy (of any type) moving spontaneously from a lower to a higher energy state is wrong...usually because they just aren't bright enough to figure out what they are seeing, or they forget the whole spontaneous part. You have demonstrated that you failed at both. congratulations. Call the US patent office and tell them you have observed energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

Like I said...anyone who thinks they have observed energy (of any type) moving spontaneously from a lower to a higher energy state is wrong.

Like I said...you won't explain the work done that allows the Sun's cooler surface to emit toward the hotter corona. You won't explain the work done that allows the Earth's cooler surface to emit toward the hotter thermosphere.

What are you afraid of?

 

[Wuwei]

Like I said...anyone who thinks they have observed energy (of any type) moving spontaneously from a lower to a higher energy state is wrong...usually because they just aren't bright enough to figure out what they are seeing, or they forget the whole spontaneous part. You have demonstrated that you failed at both. congratulations. Call the US patent office and tell them you have observed energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

Look up luminescence spontaneous cold body radiation in Google.
Lots of sites call it "cold-body radiation. For example in wiki you will find,

Luminescence is spontaneous emission of light by a substance not resulting from heat; it is thus a form of cold-body radiation. ... This distinguishes luminescence from incandescence, which is light emitted by a substance as a result of heating.​

Here ways to think about the emission of the two types of radiation:
Incandescence follows the black body radiation law; luminescence does not.
Incandescence follows the Stefan-Boltzmann equation; luminescence does not.
Incandescence follows Wein's displacement law; luminescence does not.

.

 

[HenryBHough]

That isnt what it is about. Its about not giving cranks a platform to spout unsubstantiated crap.

Well spoken, crank.

Now GFYS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like I said...anyone who thinks they have observed energy (of any type) moving spontaneously from a lower to a higher energy state is wrong...usually because they just aren't bright enough to figure out what they are seeing, or they forget the whole spontaneous part. You have demonstrated that you failed at both. congratulations. Call the US patent office and tell them you have observed energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

Like I said...anyone who thinks they have observed energy (of any type) moving spontaneously from a lower to a higher energy state is wrong.

Like I said...you won't explain the work done that allows the Sun's cooler surface to emit toward the hotter corona. You won't explain the work done that allows the Earth's cooler surface to emit toward the hotter thermosphere.

Still afraid bro?

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody cares

CNN said 4 years ago the dont fo stories on climate change. Said Zucker, "Frankly, there is little interest."

 

[Cuasgedu]

Interesting opinion, but I don`t quite understand the essence of the problem

 

[HenryBHough]

So freedom of expression isn't dead exclusively in America

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like I said...anyone who thinks they have observed energy (of any type) moving spontaneously from a lower to a higher energy state is wrong...usually because they just aren't bright enough to figure out what they are seeing, or they forget the whole spontaneous part. You have demonstrated that you failed at both. congratulations. Call the US patent office and tell them you have observed energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

Like I said...anyone who thinks they have observed energy (of any type) moving spontaneously from a lower to a higher energy state is wrong..

Exactly. You need work to move energy from the surface through the corona.