LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[jc456]

One important lesson observed, when cooler energy (LWIR at longer wave lengths) was introduced cooling of the cylinder was noted. This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength. Also energy which can not react (outside of reaction bands) with the molecule and will pass unaltered

Hahahahaha. It is hard to imagine more stupidity packed into a short three sentence paragraph.

Proving once more you have no concept of how energy flows through our atmosphere. This experiment was designed to see how the atmosphere alone reacts to passing LWIR.. You care to refute the findings of this observed empirical evidence from experiment or are ahoms all you can muster?

Pointing out your foolish stupidity is not an ad hom when you actually are stupidly foolish.

Like you?

 

[jc456]

One important lesson observed, when cooler energy (LWIR at longer wave lengths) was introduced cooling of the cylinder was noted. This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength. Also energy which can not react (outside of reaction bands) with the molecule and will pass unaltered

Hahahahaha. It is hard to imagine more stupidity packed into a short three sentence paragraph.

Proving once more you have no concept of how energy flows through our atmosphere. This experiment was designed to see how the atmosphere alone reacts to passing LWIR.. You care to refute the findings of this observed empirical evidence from experiment or are ahoms all you can muster?

This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength.

How much shorter?

That is bordering on disobeying the SLoT. Without extra energy being supplied by molecular collision, you cannot have a low energy photon go in and a high energy one come out.

Still waiting on that observed measured data!

 

[SSDD]

One important lesson observed, when cooler energy (LWIR at longer wave lengths) was introduced cooling of the cylinder was noted. This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength. Also energy which can not react (outside of reaction bands) with the molecule and will pass unaltered

Hahahahaha. It is hard to imagine more stupidity packed into a short three sentence paragraph.

Proving once more you have no concept of how energy flows through our atmosphere. This experiment was designed to see how the atmosphere alone reacts to passing LWIR.. You care to refute the findings of this observed empirical evidence from experiment or are ahoms all you can muster?

You probably shouldn't hold your breath waiting for it...it would be very bad for your health to hold your breath that long...ie…..forever.
This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength.

How much shorter?

That is bordering on disobeying the SLoT. Without extra energy being supplied by molecular collision, you cannot have a low energy photon go in and a high energy one come out.

Still waiting on that observed measured data!

 

[IanC]

I guess its time to show why you all are imbeciles....

First lets look at the reactivity of O2... In the graph below there are just two regions that O2 can react with energy passing through the atmosphere.
View attachment 235032
The Y axis is wavelength in nanometers. In the graph above it are the major components of our atmosphere and their reaction bands where LWIR can affect that component by absorption or emission..

View attachment 235038

We focused on outgoing LWIR. Our region of investigation was 5um to 100um. LWIR is not stopped by Oxygen and the region in the outgoing bands is less than 1% that can be affected. In a pure O2 environment the shear mass of earths atmosphere could not be warmed by outgoing LWIR.

View attachment 235040

Again, just as with O2 and Ozone, CO2 can only affect 4% of the radiation band. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is so minute that it is incapable of stopping outbound radiation. It theoretically affects just 4% of the total energy being emitted from the black body. CO2 has very low energy residency time and will not warm without a secondary molecule that can warm, with which it must collide. This hypothesis was proven correct by the experiment which removed water vapor from the atmosphere.

Its amazing how many people can not grasp this simple concept.

Holy F¥€K! You are irredeemably stupid. Do you even understand what temperature is? Warming and cooling have meaning and definition.

 

[IanC]

One important lesson observed, when cooler energy (LWIR at longer wave lengths) was introduced cooling of the cylinder was noted. This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength. Also energy which can not react (outside of reaction bands) with the molecule and will pass unaltered

Hahahahaha. It is hard to imagine more stupidity packed into a short three sentence paragraph.

Proving once more you have no concept of how energy flows through our atmosphere. This experiment was designed to see how the atmosphere alone reacts to passing LWIR.. You care to refute the findings of this observed empirical evidence from experiment or are ahoms all you can muster?

This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength.

How much shorter?

That is bordering on disobeying the SLoT. Without extra energy being supplied by molecular collision, you cannot have a low energy photon go in and a high energy one come out.

I guess you need to explain what a Photon is then... Is it matter or is it an electromagnetic wave?

Photons are bosons. Bosons are not restricted to unique quantum states like fermions that make up matter.

Any amount of light can exist at one point of space. But only one particle of matter can occupy any individual point at one time.

Do you really not understand the fundamental difference between light and matter?

 

[IanC]

Hahahahaha. It is hard to imagine more stupidity packed into a short three sentence paragraph.

Proving once more you have no concept of how energy flows through our atmosphere. This experiment was designed to see how the atmosphere alone reacts to passing LWIR.. You care to refute the findings of this observed empirical evidence from experiment or are ahoms all you can muster?

This is an expected result as energy is consumed warming the matter (photon) to re-emit at sightly shorter wavelength.

How much shorter?

Within the band of reactivity..

Nice non-responsive answer.
What wavelength enters, what shorter wavelength leaves?
Use specific numbers.

We observed a 0.15um increase in wavelength.We bombarded CO2@100% concentration with 12um energy until it emitted at the same level then we bombarded CO2 with low energy (16um energy) it responds at a slightly shorter wave length increase until it cooled to the new level of the incoming energy.
IE: 12um >>>>>>>15.85um, 13um>>>15.85um, 14um>>>15.85um, 16um>>>16um... The spike in energy output was just above the new energy input. This indicates that it is warming mater to re-emit it until input equaled output at which time the spike disappeared. So the question remains, are we emitting photons that are matter or energy? Our work suggests it is matter. A question for another experiment to be sure.

Molecules have their own unique patterns of absorption and emission, that is why they can be identified by spectography.

CO2 reacts strongly with 15 micron radiation. CO2 also reacts with 14.9 and 15.1 micron radiation, but less strongly. The analogy is a poorly fitted key that unlocks the door if you wiggle it just right.

But a CO2 molecule does not absorb a 15 micron photon and then emit a 16 micron photon. Or vice versa

 

[SSDD]

Do you really not understand the fundamental difference between light and matter?

Neither does science...but that never stops you from pretending that they do. The fundamental nature of light remains a mystery...wave/particle duality is just a story we tell till such time as we get it figured out. The fact that you believe the story is true is equal parts funny and sad.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 reacts strongly with 15 micron radiation. CO2 also reacts with 14.9 and 15.1 micron radiation, but less strongly.

Describe the "reaction" you are visualizing. And visualizing is precisely what you are doing because at the present, we don't understand the underlying nature, or mechanism of absorption and emission....yet another thing that you believe science has a handle on..but doesn't.

 

[Wuwei]

The fundamental nature of light remains a mystery...wave/particle duality is just a story we tell till such time as we get it figured out. The fact that you believe the story is true is equal parts funny and sad.

The nature of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion. You are the one for which it is a mystery.

 

[Wuwei]

at the present, we don't understand the underlying nature, or mechanism of absorption and emission....yet another thing that you believe science has a handle on..but doesn't.

That is total hog wash. The point is "you" not "we" don't understand.

 

[jc456]

The fundamental nature of light remains a mystery...wave/particle duality is just a story we tell till such time as we get it figured out. The fact that you believe the story is true is equal parts funny and sad.

The nature of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion. You are the one for which it is a mystery.

avoidance, your only weapon of debate.

 

[jc456]

at the present, we don't understand the underlying nature, or mechanism of absorption and emission....yet another thing that you believe science has a handle on..but doesn't.

That is total hog wash. The point is "you" not "we" don't understand.

avoidance, your only weapon of debate.

 

[SSDD]

The fundamental nature of light remains a mystery...wave/particle duality is just a story we tell till such time as we get it figured out. The fact that you believe the story is true is equal parts funny and sad.

The nature of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion. You are the one for which it is a mystery.

Really...is light a wave or a particle? Be specific...

 

[SSDD]

at the present, we don't understand the underlying nature, or mechanism of absorption and emission....yet another thing that you believe science has a handle on..but doesn't.

That is total hog wash. The point is "you" not "we" don't understand.

Really? Describe the mechanism by which a vibration within a molecule or atom becomes radiation traveling at the speed of light. Be specific.

You guys who believe science knows all are doing nothing more than demonstrating how badly you either have been duped, or have duped yourselves.

 

[SSDD]

The fundamental nature of light remains a mystery...wave/particle duality is just a story we tell till such time as we get it figured out. The fact that you believe the story is true is equal parts funny and sad.

The nature of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion. You are the one for which it is a mystery.

avoidance, your only weapon of debate.

Wait till you see his reply...it will prove pretty conclusively that he doesn't even begin to understand what he doesn't know.

Today...a week or so before the year of 2019, we don't know whether photons actually exist...they remain theoretical particles...we don't know for sure whether the speed of light is as fast as something can move or if it may be exceeded...and just recently, scientists "think" they discovered a whole new kind of light.

These wack jobs who believe science knows everything are a sad lot indeed..

 

[SSDD]

at the present, we don't understand the underlying nature, or mechanism of absorption and emission....yet another thing that you believe science has a handle on..but doesn't.

That is total hog wash. The point is "you" not "we" don't understand.

avoidance, your only weapon of debate.

This answer should be good too.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I guess its time to show why you all are imbeciles....

First lets look at the reactivity of O2... In the graph below there are just two regions that O2 can react with energy passing through the atmosphere.
View attachment 235032
The Y axis is wavelength in nanometers. In the graph above it are the major components of our atmosphere and their reaction bands where LWIR can affect that component by absorption or emission..

View attachment 235038

We focused on outgoing LWIR. Our region of investigation was 5um to 100um. LWIR is not stopped by Oxygen and the region in the outgoing bands is less than 1% that can be affected. In a pure O2 environment the shear mass of earths atmosphere could not be warmed by outgoing LWIR.

View attachment 235040

Again, just as with O2 and Ozone, CO2 can only affect 4% of the radiation band. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is so minute that it is incapable of stopping outbound radiation. It theoretically affects just 4% of the total energy being emitted from the black body. CO2 has very low energy residency time and will not warm without a secondary molecule that can warm, with which it must collide. This hypothesis was proven correct by the experiment which removed water vapor from the atmosphere.

Its amazing how many people can not grasp this simple concept.

Holy F¥€K! You are irredeemably stupid. Do you even understand what temperature is? Warming and cooling have meaning and definition.

Tell me, Do molecules have a temperature?

Why YES, yes they do.. And they radiate at that temperature... so what happens when you place energy in a narrow band and bombard molecules, then change that energy to a lower temperature emission? How will the molecule respond? How will the elongating molecule be seen in spectrograph? How will the shrinking molecules energy be seen in emission? Do you know?

You are an irredeemable moron. You fail to grasp even the most basic physics at the molecular level.


Please enlighten me... Are photons matter or energy?

What we OBSERVED was in keeping with a photon being matter.

 

[IanC]

I guess its time to show why you all are imbeciles....

First lets look at the reactivity of O2... In the graph below there are just two regions that O2 can react with energy passing through the atmosphere.
View attachment 235032
The Y axis is wavelength in nanometers. In the graph above it are the major components of our atmosphere and their reaction bands where LWIR can affect that component by absorption or emission..

View attachment 235038

We focused on outgoing LWIR. Our region of investigation was 5um to 100um. LWIR is not stopped by Oxygen and the region in the outgoing bands is less than 1% that can be affected. In a pure O2 environment the shear mass of earths atmosphere could not be warmed by outgoing LWIR.

View attachment 235040

Again, just as with O2 and Ozone, CO2 can only affect 4% of the radiation band. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is so minute that it is incapable of stopping outbound radiation. It theoretically affects just 4% of the total energy being emitted from the black body. CO2 has very low energy residency time and will not warm without a secondary molecule that can warm, with which it must collide. This hypothesis was proven correct by the experiment which removed water vapor from the atmosphere.

Its amazing how many people can not grasp this simple concept.

Holy F¥€K! You are irredeemably stupid. Do you even understand what temperature is? Warming and cooling have meaning and definition.

Tell me, Do molecules have a temperature?

Why YES, yes they do.. And they radiate at that temperature... so what happens when you place energy in a narrow band and bombard molecules, then change that energy to a lower temperature emission? How will the molecule respond? How will the elongating molecule be seen in spectrograph? How will the shrinking molecules energy be seen in emission? Do you know?

You are an irredeemable moron. You fail to grasp even the most basic physics at the molecular level.


Please enlighten me... Are photons matter or energy?

What we OBSERVED was in keeping with a photon being matter.

No, an individual molecule does not have a temperature.

A photon is energy and has no mass. A photon has characteristics of both a wave and a particle therefore it is neither.

Have you ever met someone who agreed that light is matter?

 

[Wuwei]

Really...is light a wave or a particle? Be specific...

Mathematically light behaves as a wave when traveling through space and acts as a particle when interacting with matter. That behavior at the atomic level has been observed tested to parts per billion accuracy

Really? Describe the mechanism by which a vibration within a molecule or atom becomes radiation traveling at the speed of light. Be specific.

It was known over a century ago that accelerating charges (as in vibration of a dipole) radiate EM energy. It has been observed and measured many times.

But of course you will not believe that because many trolls here don't believe science.

 

[SSDD]

Mathematically light behaves as a wave when traveling through space and acts as a particle when interacting with matter. That behavior at the atomic level has been observed tested to parts per billion accuracy

I didn't ask you for mathematical model...You claimed that the NATURE of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion. The particle/wave nature of light is a story put in place in an attempt to explain something that had no explanation...it still has no explanation...just a story made up a very long time ago.

It was known over a century ago that accelerating charges (as in vibration of a dipole) radiate EM energy. It has been observed and measured many times.

So again...no answer...of course we have observed energy moving...I asked you to describe the mechanism by which a vibration in a molecule, becomes radiation moving at the speed of light...again...we don't know and aren't likely to know for quite some time if we ever know.

Is there any lie you won't tell..or any sewer you won't drag your intellect through rather than simply admit that there are things which science doesn't know?[/QUOTE]