Map Makers Show Greenland Sections As Ice Free To Please AGW Advocates

[wirebender]

actually wirebender I would like to thank you for bringing this whole subject up. as a teenager forty years ago I loved thinking about physics and chemistry and quantum effects. I must admit when I first said you were wrong I wasnt sure why exactly. but I am sure now and it has been delightful to renew my admittedly shallow understanding of how things work on the micro/macro scale. perhaps we should delve into the thermodynamics aspect as well. it is also a messy subject with easy to forget, misunderstand and misuse principles.

Very caucasian of you, but I am afraid that you have done little more than prove that you should have thought about them a bit more deeply and followed up with some college courses if you were interested.

Pretending to have won the argument when you have not won a single point is, pardon the expression, just dumb.

As to the thermodynamics, geez Ian, you don't even get photons, EM fields, and simple vectors, How the hell do you expect to get through thermodynamics. It was decent of you to finally admit that your understanding is shallow although your argument so far has left no doubt of that fact.

 

[gslack]

Wire, I wouldn't bother with him any longer. He has shown no desire to debate this on merit in at least the last 30 posts he has put up on it. He shows less and less desire to debate and more and more desire to save face. He avoids all direct questions or points and gives false responses by changing what you asked or said into something he can shuck and jive through. He is just another internet bullshit artist with a little bit better game than the average. When he gets caught in his BS he resorts to his true nature and this is what we get. A konradv with slightly better game... Same MO just a better act...

 

[wirebender]

I keep thinking that at some point he will say what he thinks an EM field is losing when its mangnitude is diminished considering that the field is composed of photons.

 

[IanC]

I keep thinking that at some point he will say what he thinks an EM field is losing when its mangnitude is diminished considering that the field is composed of photons.

should I keep going sportsfans? wirebender thinks he's right and I know he's wrong but does anyone else care?

wirebender- you have your EM field, take a vector straight out. imagine putting a piece of matter at distance D or at distance 2D. is the force(D) for times as large as for force(2D)? do you think that the photon decreased in energy by three quarters or do you think there are only 1/4th as many photons? or some other scenario?

 

[wirebender]

wirebender- you have your EM field, take a vector straight out. imagine putting a piece of matter at distance D or at distance 2D. is the force(D) for times as large as for force(2D)? do you think that the photon decreased in energy by three quarters or do you think there are only 1/4th as many photons? or some other scenario?

Gslack is right. You are a dancing bear. No one ever said that a photon decreases in energy. A photon either is, or it isn't. The magnitude of the field increases or decreases. If it increases, it has gained photons. If it decreases, it has lost photons. You have lost this and everyone who has bothered to look already knows it.

Maybe you can get konradv and rocks to cheer for you on the sidelines.

 

[gslack]

I keep thinking that at some point he will say what he thinks an EM field is losing when its mangnitude is diminished considering that the field is composed of photons.

should I keep going sportsfans? wirebender thinks he's right and I know he's wrong but does anyone else care?

wirebender- you have your EM field, take a vector straight out. imagine putting a piece of matter at distance D or at distance 2D. is the force(D) for times as large as for force(2D)? do you think that the photon decreased in energy by three quarters or do you think there are only 1/4th as many photons? or some other scenario?

Appeals to the forum only make you look desperate...

 

[RollingThunder]

I keep thinking that at some point he will say what he thinks an EM field is losing when its mangnitude is diminished considering that the field is composed of photons.

should I keep going sportsfans? wirebender thinks he's right and I know he's wrong but does anyone else care?

wirebender- you have your EM field, take a vector straight out. imagine putting a piece of matter at distance D or at distance 2D. is the force(D) for times as large as for force(2D)? do you think that the photon decreased in energy by three quarters or do you think there are only 1/4th as many photons? or some other scenario?

It's been fun to watch but, in fact, nobody really cares what ignorant retards like wiredwrong and the slackjawedidiot think about anything. They have both long ago lost any credibility on this forum except with their equally ignorant and retarded fellow rightwingnut wackos. Slackjawed is a worthless troll and Wiredwrong is the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He actually believes that his ignorant misunderstandings of science and dimwitted pseudo-math make him right and all of the world's scientists wrong about a lot of stuff, including global warming/climate changes. He is stupid and ignorant enough to think that two beams of light intersecting will cancel each other out totally. Try asking him where the energy goes and how that is in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Ask him about Poynting vectors and how they relate to his crackpot theories. Wiredwrong can spin off some techno-babble but he is essentially clueless and arrogantly ignorant without the mental capacity to realize how ignorant he actually is. Because he is kind of psychotic, you will never crack his shell of false certainty with any amount of evidence or facts. So....it's fun to watch but basically a big waste of your time. I will occasionally engage with them for fun and amusement but I know in advance that it is a lost cause to try to get them to break through their brainwashing and give up their mistaken belief in the misinformation and lies they've been fed by the fossil fuel industry. I just debunk their nonsense to keep things straight for others who may be reading this forum.

 

[gslack]

I keep thinking that at some point he will say what he thinks an EM field is losing when its mangnitude is diminished considering that the field is composed of photons.

should I keep going sportsfans? wirebender thinks he's right and I know he's wrong but does anyone else care?

wirebender- you have your EM field, take a vector straight out. imagine putting a piece of matter at distance D or at distance 2D. is the force(D) for times as large as for force(2D)? do you think that the photon decreased in energy by three quarters or do you think there are only 1/4th as many photons? or some other scenario?

It's been fun to watch but, in fact, nobody really cares what ignorant retards like wiredwrong and the slackjawedidiot think about anything. They have both long ago lost any credibility on this forum except with their equally ignorant and retarded fellow rightwingnut wackos. Slackjawed is a worthless troll and Wiredwrong is the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He actually believes that his ignorant misunderstandings of science and dimwitted pseudo-math make him right and all of the world's scientists wrong about a lot of stuff, including global warming/climate changes. He is stupid and ignorant enough to think that two beams of light intersecting will cancel each other out totally. Try asking him where the energy goes and how that is in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Ask him about Poynting vectors and how they relate to his crackpot theories. Wiredwrong can spin off some techno-babble but he is essentially clueless and arrogantly ignorant without the mental capacity to realize how ignorant he actually is. Because he is kind of psychotic, you will never crack his shell of false certainty with any amount of evidence or facts. So....it's fun to watch but basically a big waste of your time. I will occasionally engage with them for fun and amusement but I know in advance that it is a lost cause to try to get them to break through their brainwashing and give up their mistaken belief in the misinformation and lies they've been fed by the fossil fuel industry. I just debunk their nonsense to keep things straight for others who may be reading this forum.

There we go... We see true character in action from trolling blunder and olsocks...

You guys know what character is? Well one aspect of it would be to have some back bone and stand on principle, especially in matters where you have the choice between supporting someone whom you may diametrically oppose on all other circumstances save one; who his enemies may be at a given time...

I find it not only telling of all of your true pathetic and spineless natures, but more importantly completely illuminates the desperation in all of you...

Not to mention utterly hilarious that Ian has willingly allowed himself to be supported by the very people who just weeks ago spent hours assaulting him...

 

[IanC]

interesting. gslack thinks it is a point of honour to agree with friends even if they are wrong. isnt that exactly what the hockey team has been doing?

personally I prefer to support the truth as best I know it no matter who speaks it.

 

[gslack]

interesting. gslack thinks it is a point of honour to agree with friends even if they are wrong. isnt that exactly what the hockey team has been doing?

personally I prefer to support the truth as best I know it no matter who speaks it.

LOL douchebag you stopped being my friend when you decided to lie about my links and then furthered that with doing so a second time. Not to mention the harassment where you followed me around needling me. Or how about the bullshit you keep pulling by refusing to answer what is asked or address what is stated as stated in favor of mincing words and trying to obfuscate the entire discussion?

And exactly when did you start telling the truth? You lied about my links, lied about what I meant, lied about what was said, and continue to do so.

Honor is something you know nothing about Ian, so please spare me your empty high talk now. If wirebender was wrong I would say so, but as it stands he has yet to be proven so. You on the other hand have shown yourself to be completely full of shit.. Ian you and I both know you are faking it. Its done. You are flat busted being another internet bullshit artist.

IF you had an iota of real scientific integrity in you, you would have in the very least bothered to to a little research on at least wave-particle duality, rather than sit there calling wirebender wrong. The fact is you don't understand it, and have no desire to learn about it because you think you already know all there is worth knowing on this and anyone else is obviously wrong or making things up.

Next time you want to talk about "friends" and honor, try parking your ego at the door first.

 

[wirebender]

It's been fun to watch but, in fact, nobody really cares what ignorant retards like wiredwrong and the slackjawedidiot think about anything. They have both long ago lost any credibility on this forum except with their equally ignorant and retarded fellow rightwingnut wackos. Slackjawed is a worthless troll and Wiredwrong is the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He actually believes that his ignorant misunderstandings of science and dimwitted pseudo-math make him right and all of the world's scientists wrong about a lot of stuff, including global warming/climate changes. He is stupid and ignorant enough to think that two beams of light intersecting will cancel each other out totally. Try asking him where the energy goes and how that is in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Ask him about Poynting vectors and how they relate to his crackpot theories. Wiredwrong can spin off some techno-babble but he is essentially clueless and arrogantly ignorant without the mental capacity to realize how ignorant he actually is. Because he is kind of psychotic, you will never crack his shell of false certainty with any amount of evidence or facts. So....it's fun to watch but basically a big waste of your time. I will occasionally engage with them for fun and amusement but I know in advance that it is a lost cause to try to get them to break through their brainwashing and give up their mistaken belief in the misinformation and lies they've been fed by the fossil fuel industry. I just debunk their nonsense to keep things straight for others who may be reading this forum.

Laughable thunder, coming from a guy who can't answer the simplest of questions.

Name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.

And thunder, you have never engaged with me on an intellectual level. Namecalling and cut and paste are the extent of your engagements because we all know that you are unable to speak to the topic in your own words because you really just aren't very bright.

 

[RollingThunder]

It's been fun to watch but, in fact, nobody really cares what ignorant retards like wiredwrong and the slackjawedidiot think about anything. They have both long ago lost any credibility on this forum except with their equally ignorant and retarded fellow rightwingnut wackos. Slackjawed is a worthless troll and Wiredwrong is the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He actually believes that his ignorant misunderstandings of science and dimwitted pseudo-math make him right and all of the world's scientists wrong about a lot of stuff, including global warming/climate changes. He is stupid and ignorant enough to think that two beams of light intersecting will cancel each other out totally. Try asking him where the energy goes and how that is in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Ask him about Poynting vectors and how they relate to his crackpot theories. Wiredwrong can spin off some techno-babble but he is essentially clueless and arrogantly ignorant without the mental capacity to realize how ignorant he actually is. Because he is kind of psychotic, you will never crack his shell of false certainty with any amount of evidence or facts. So....it's fun to watch but basically a big waste of your time. I will occasionally engage with them for fun and amusement but I know in advance that it is a lost cause to try to get them to break through their brainwashing and give up their mistaken belief in the misinformation and lies they've been fed by the fossil fuel industry. I just debunk their nonsense to keep things straight for others who may be reading this forum.

Laughable thunder, coming from a guy who can't answer the simplest of questions.

Name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.

And thunder, you have never engaged with me on an intellectual level. Namecalling and cut and paste are the extent of your engagements because we all know that you are unable to speak to the topic in your own words because you really just aren't very bright.

Already done, over here:

Now all you have to do is provide some hard, observed, repeatable evidence that man is responsible.

By the way:

Which physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists?

That's been done many times by a number of people, wiredwrong, but you are just tooooooo retarded, confused and brainwashed to get it so nobody is going to waste much time with your nonsense anymore.

But just by the way, you poor silly retard, the greenhouse effect is an observed phenomena. What you call 'physical laws' are attempts to make generalizations about reality based on observed phenomena. Observed phenomena don't need a "physical law" to "predict or support" them to make them real. Nevertheless there are "laws" of radiative physics that do explain the greenhouse effect. Those "laws", developed over the last century and a half or so, are partially based on direct observations of the IR trapping qualities of greenhouse gases.

How do we know that humans are the major cause of global warming?


Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong?


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming


Evidence For Human-Caused Global Warming Is Now 'Unequivocal'

 

[gslack]

It's been fun to watch but, in fact, nobody really cares what ignorant retards like wiredwrong and the slackjawedidiot think about anything. They have both long ago lost any credibility on this forum except with their equally ignorant and retarded fellow rightwingnut wackos. Slackjawed is a worthless troll and Wiredwrong is the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He actually believes that his ignorant misunderstandings of science and dimwitted pseudo-math make him right and all of the world's scientists wrong about a lot of stuff, including global warming/climate changes. He is stupid and ignorant enough to think that two beams of light intersecting will cancel each other out totally. Try asking him where the energy goes and how that is in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Ask him about Poynting vectors and how they relate to his crackpot theories. Wiredwrong can spin off some techno-babble but he is essentially clueless and arrogantly ignorant without the mental capacity to realize how ignorant he actually is. Because he is kind of psychotic, you will never crack his shell of false certainty with any amount of evidence or facts. So....it's fun to watch but basically a big waste of your time. I will occasionally engage with them for fun and amusement but I know in advance that it is a lost cause to try to get them to break through their brainwashing and give up their mistaken belief in the misinformation and lies they've been fed by the fossil fuel industry. I just debunk their nonsense to keep things straight for others who may be reading this forum.

Laughable thunder, coming from a guy who can't answer the simplest of questions.

Name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.

And thunder, you have never engaged with me on an intellectual level. Namecalling and cut and paste are the extent of your engagements because we all know that you are unable to speak to the topic in your own words because you really just aren't very bright.

Wire there are so many new studies taking place in the study of two-particle physics in particular (if not even directly but indirectly) there really is no excuse for even the most casual of searches not to come up with something that relates to it on the net.

Hell there is a scientist in Europe (can't remember where exactly) who has a large vibrating dish with some sort of oil or liquid on it, which he uses to study the behavior and characteristics of waves. Through precise measurements he is able to get a good idea of how this may work on a microscopic or even a sub-atomic level. This may seem at first irrelevant to the wave-particle duality of say a photon, but he has found that it may be a good base comparison to the wave side of this. From my understanding the particle aspect is fairly simple enough, its a particle and no different than another particle in some ways, but the wave side has been a lot harder to conceptualize or articulate, and its properties have all been mathematical equations with very few ways we can view.

I usually view a wave as a flow of energy from one point to another. Something starts the flow like a raindrop in a pool of water and that flow continues (gradually decreasing intensity of course) until it hits something of greater force, mass, or magnitude where it crashes and disperses making other smaller and varying waves which rebound off in other directions (never back directly at the source), or absorbed into the object (like the behavior of a cloth in water). However how many of us ever actually took the time to study those things from the perspective of a quantum physicist?

How much energy is absorbed, dispersed and absorbed with various materials? What variations can we expect with different shapes or densities? Is the behavior after crashing into an object as uniform as its may appear or is there a more random bit of chaos we cannot see? Good questions and I hope he can help find those answers.

Now IF Ian were the scientifically minded person he pretends to be, he would realize in that little story above, he was just given a simple way to grasp the wave-particle duality. All conceptualized and gift wrapped for him to consume. Yet I will say he not only did not bother to read it, but does not even realize it was telling him anything at all. As he dismissed my links before with a simple blah, blah, blah, I didn't bother to read it, so he will do here as well. And THAT is not the behavior, actions, or attitude of a scientific mind.

He is about as much a scientifically minded person as I am the Pope...

 

[rightwinger]

The AGW myth can't survive scrutiny. That's why the cultists oppose it.

We're just supposed to take their word for it.

Famous last words

 

[wirebender]

That's been done many times by a number of people, wiredwrong, but you are just tooooooo retarded, confused and brainwashed to get it so nobody is going to waste much time with your nonsense anymore.

Sorry thunder, but it hasn't, and none of your idiotic links describe any physical law at all that either supports or predicts a greenhouse effect.

Name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.

By the way:

Which physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists? [/quote]

But just by the way, you poor silly retard, the greenhouse effect is an observed phenomena.

Sorry guy, but again, you prove beyond question that you don't have a clue. There is no observed greenhouse effect in the open atmosphere, and those pitiful greenhouse in a bottle experiments only demonstrate ideal gas laws dealing with temperature as it relates to pressure.

But hey, if you can point to actual observed evidence of a greenhouse effect as described by warmists, by all means lets see it.

Nevertheless there are "laws" of radiative physics that do explain the greenhouse effect.

Sorry thunder, but there aren't. The laws of physics not only do not support or predict a greenhouse effect as described by warmists, they specifically and explicitly forbid it. That is why I can name physical laws that don't support your beliefs while you can name none that do. For example, a greenhouse effect as described by warmists violates the law of conservation of energy and the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Those "laws", developed over the last century and a half or so, are partially based on direct observations of the IR trapping qualities of greenhouse gases.

No greenhouse gas other than water vapor has the ability to absorb and trap heat. All other so called greenhouse gasses absorb and immediately emit radiation but have no mechanism by which to trap it. If you believe they do, then describe the mechanism.

Again thunder,

Name a physical law or laws that support and predict a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real physics, real math. Something Bent doesn't understand.

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 | Climate Change

Just to get a bit of this out of the way, the effective temperature of the Earth with radius r is:

πr2(1 – a)S= 4πr2σT4, or

Teff = [S(1 -a)/4σ]1/4 = 255 K

We can then write an equation for the energy balance of the atmosphere, as

Iup,atmosphere + Idown, atmosphere = Iup, ground

= 2ɛTatmosphere4 = ɛTground4 (also accounting for emissivity), or

Tground = fourthroot (2Tatmosphere)

This temperature is below freezing, and so this shows that if the Earth’s temperature were purely based on the amount of solar radiation it receives, it would be far from habitable. The gap between our present day comfort, and an iceball planet is due to the fact that some of the outgoing infrared radiation is not immediately sent right back to space, but is absorbed by the atmosphere, where some is radiated downward to the surface. This is due to the fact that we have greenhouse gases, which are transparent to incoming solar radiation, but absorb outgoing infrared radiation strongly. The mean surface temperature difference is,

Δ T ≡ Ts – Teff = 33 K

The mean temperature of the Earth’s surface is actually 288 K, which says that the greenhouse gases are responsible for a 33 K enhancement. No longer freezing, but rather comfortable and unique to the solar system.

So what is going with this greenhouse??

The following image shows a spectra at the top of the atmosphere which shows the absorption of photons by CO2, water vapor, ozone, etc.

 

[IanC]

It's been fun to watch but, in fact, nobody really cares what ignorant retards like wiredwrong and the slackjawedidiot think about anything. They have both long ago lost any credibility on this forum except with their equally ignorant and retarded fellow rightwingnut wackos. Slackjawed is a worthless troll and Wiredwrong is the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He actually believes that his ignorant misunderstandings of science and dimwitted pseudo-math make him right and all of the world's scientists wrong about a lot of stuff, including global warming/climate changes. He is stupid and ignorant enough to think that two beams of light intersecting will cancel each other out totally. Try asking him where the energy goes and how that is in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Ask him about Poynting vectors and how they relate to his crackpot theories. Wiredwrong can spin off some techno-babble but he is essentially clueless and arrogantly ignorant without the mental capacity to realize how ignorant he actually is. Because he is kind of psychotic, you will never crack his shell of false certainty with any amount of evidence or facts. So....it's fun to watch but basically a big waste of your time. I will occasionally engage with them for fun and amusement but I know in advance that it is a lost cause to try to get them to break through their brainwashing and give up their mistaken belief in the misinformation and lies they've been fed by the fossil fuel industry. I just debunk their nonsense to keep things straight for others who may be reading this forum.

Laughable thunder, coming from a guy who can't answer the simplest of questions.

Name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.

And thunder, you have never engaged with me on an intellectual level. Namecalling and cut and paste are the extent of your engagements because we all know that you are unable to speak to the topic in your own words because you really just aren't very bright.

Wire there are so many new studies taking place in the study of two-particle physics in particular (if not even directly but indirectly) there really is no excuse for even the most casual of searches not to come up with something that relates to it on the net.

Hell there is a scientist in Europe (can't remember where exactly) who has a large vibrating dish with some sort of oil or liquid on it, which he uses to study the behavior and characteristics of waves. Through precise measurements he is able to get a good idea of how this may work on a microscopic or even a sub-atomic level. This may seem at first irrelevant to the wave-particle duality of say a photon, but he has found that it may be a good base comparison to the wave side of this. From my understanding the particle aspect is fairly simple enough, its a particle and no different than another particle in some ways, but the wave side has been a lot harder to conceptualize or articulate, and its properties have all been mathematical equations with very few ways we can view.

I usually view a wave as a flow of energy from one point to another. Something starts the flow like a raindrop in a pool of water and that flow continues (gradually decreasing intensity of course) until it hits something of greater force, mass, or magnitude where it crashes and disperses making other smaller and varying waves which rebound off in other directions (never back directly at the source), or absorbed into the object (like the behavior of a cloth in water). However how many of us ever actually took the time to study those things from the perspective of a quantum physicist?

How much energy is absorbed, dispersed and absorbed with various materials? What variations can we expect with different shapes or densities? Is the behavior after crashing into an object as uniform as its may appear or is there a more random bit of chaos we cannot see? Good questions and I hope he can help find those answers.

Now IF Ian were the scientifically minded person he pretends to be, he would realize in that little story above, he was just given a simple way to grasp the wave-particle duality. All conceptualized and gift wrapped for him to consume. Yet I will say he not only did not bother to read it, but does not even realize it was telling him anything at all. As he dismissed my links before with a simple blah, blah, blah, I didn't bother to read it, so he will do here as well. And THAT is not the behavior, actions, or attitude of a scientific mind.

He is about as much a scientifically minded person as I am the Pope...

gslack- you dont learn about the paradoxes of photons by studying waves in oil. why dont you try reading a book on the history of physics? ultraviolet catastrophe, photoelectric effect, the debates between Bohr and Einstein camps, particle accelerators and the discovery of quark theory, etc. and while youre at it, find a high school level lesson plan on how light waves interact so that you realize wirebender's cartoonish vision of light intensities battling each other to a standstill is nothing but the bullshit I have been calling it since the beginning.

 

[gslack]

Real physics, real math. Something Bent doesn't understand.

Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1 | Climate Change

Just to get a bit of this out of the way, the effective temperature of the Earth with radius r is:

πr2(1 – a)S= 4πr2σT4, or

Teff = [S(1 -a)/4σ]1/4 = 255 K

We can then write an equation for the energy balance of the atmosphere, as

Iup,atmosphere + Idown, atmosphere = Iup, ground

= 2ɛTatmosphere4 = ɛTground4 (also accounting for emissivity), or

Tground = fourthroot (2Tatmosphere)

This temperature is below freezing, and so this shows that if the Earth’s temperature were purely based on the amount of solar radiation it receives, it would be far from habitable. The gap between our present day comfort, and an iceball planet is due to the fact that some of the outgoing infrared radiation is not immediately sent right back to space, but is absorbed by the atmosphere, where some is radiated downward to the surface. This is due to the fact that we have greenhouse gases, which are transparent to incoming solar radiation, but absorb outgoing infrared radiation strongly. The mean surface temperature difference is,

Δ T ≡ Ts – Teff = 33 K

The mean temperature of the Earth’s surface is actually 288 K, which says that the greenhouse gases are responsible for a 33 K enhancement. No longer freezing, but rather comfortable and unique to the solar system.

So what is going with this greenhouse??

The following image shows a spectra at the top of the atmosphere which shows the absorption of photons by CO2, water vapor, ozone, etc.

We have been over this already socks... Its based on the earth being a black body. Its not.. It has a good deal of its own heat, as well as a moving, changing atmosphere, and has its own electro-magnetic field. These things were not taken into account in the fourier theory. And to this day is not fully accounted for.

Now cut and paste pieces of mathematical equations you cannot explain or understand will not help you...

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. G-string, you continue to be less than a half-wit. You are argueing with degreed physicists. Not with me. And by the knowledge of science you have already demonstrated, the result is a foregone conclusion.

 

[gslack]

Laughable thunder, coming from a guy who can't answer the simplest of questions.

Name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists.

And thunder, you have never engaged with me on an intellectual level. Namecalling and cut and paste are the extent of your engagements because we all know that you are unable to speak to the topic in your own words because you really just aren't very bright.

Wire there are so many new studies taking place in the study of two-particle physics in particular (if not even directly but indirectly) there really is no excuse for even the most casual of searches not to come up with something that relates to it on the net.

Hell there is a scientist in Europe (can't remember where exactly) who has a large vibrating dish with some sort of oil or liquid on it, which he uses to study the behavior and characteristics of waves. Through precise measurements he is able to get a good idea of how this may work on a microscopic or even a sub-atomic level. This may seem at first irrelevant to the wave-particle duality of say a photon, but he has found that it may be a good base comparison to the wave side of this. From my understanding the particle aspect is fairly simple enough, its a particle and no different than another particle in some ways, but the wave side has been a lot harder to conceptualize or articulate, and its properties have all been mathematical equations with very few ways we can view.

I usually view a wave as a flow of energy from one point to another. Something starts the flow like a raindrop in a pool of water and that flow continues (gradually decreasing intensity of course) until it hits something of greater force, mass, or magnitude where it crashes and disperses making other smaller and varying waves which rebound off in other directions (never back directly at the source), or absorbed into the object (like the behavior of a cloth in water). However how many of us ever actually took the time to study those things from the perspective of a quantum physicist?

How much energy is absorbed, dispersed and absorbed with various materials? What variations can we expect with different shapes or densities? Is the behavior after crashing into an object as uniform as its may appear or is there a more random bit of chaos we cannot see? Good questions and I hope he can help find those answers.

Now IF Ian were the scientifically minded person he pretends to be, he would realize in that little story above, he was just given a simple way to grasp the wave-particle duality. All conceptualized and gift wrapped for him to consume. Yet I will say he not only did not bother to read it, but does not even realize it was telling him anything at all. As he dismissed my links before with a simple blah, blah, blah, I didn't bother to read it, so he will do here as well. And THAT is not the behavior, actions, or attitude of a scientific mind.

He is about as much a scientifically minded person as I am the Pope...

gslack- you dont learn about the paradoxes of photons by studying waves in oil. why dont you try reading a book on the history of physics? ultraviolet catastrophe, photoelectric effect, the debates between Bohr and Einstein camps, particle accelerators and the discovery of quark theory, etc. and while youre at it, find a high school level lesson plan on how light waves interact so that you realize wirebender's cartoonish vision of light intensities battling each other to a standstill is nothing but the bullshit I have been calling it since the beginning.

You freaking imbecile...LOL

You still have no idea at all. You just google up some terms and think it makes you a scientist..too funny... Can YOU explain any of them? Didin't think so.. Sure you can recite from a link or a book but do you really grasp them? Ah thats a no.. If ya did you wouldn't have to lie about what we say.

these links are here to further your embarrassment..

first a guy using microwaves to study wave-particle duality

Azriel Z. Genack - Distinguished Professor

Classical waves are the means by which we probe our environment and communicate with one another. As a result of wave - particle duality, studies of classical waves also serve as exacting models of electronic transport, involving quantum mechanical waves, in the solid state. One goal of studies at Queens College of optical and microwave radiation propagation is to provide a universal description of wave scattering in random systems.

Then a bit of fun.


Fun With Physics: The Quantum Mess: Wave-Particle Duality

It's well established that elementary particles can behave in experiments like waves, and waves behave like particles. It's called ‘Wave-Particle Duality' or just ‘Duality'. That duality isn't in doubt, but it is one of those aspects of the quantum that is puzzling. So, to explore a bit about this, I was interested in whether or not generalized wave behaviour, or generalized particle behaviour, seems to be predominant. If waves (or particles) could account for 90% that's quite a different kettle of fish than if it's a 50-50 split.

So, let's represent particles in motion (particles standing still are rather boring) by machine gun bullets. I'm sure we all agree bullets are particles. Let waves be presented by water waves or sound waves – again, I'm sure we can agree these are true waves or exhibit real wave behaviour. Now, can one or the other (maybe both) account for these particular bits of physics.


Read more: Fun With Physics: The Quantum Mess: Wave-Particle Duality
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution No Derivatives

Notice they both use waves? And the one actually uses water to represent waves.... Hmmm... Is there more of this? Why yes there is...

Oh good a video...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc]Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment - YouTube[/ame]

And more....

BYU

WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY: THE TWO-SLIT EXPERIMENT

I can really go on with this all day Ian... Fact is studying the way waves react in liquid is a fundamental study in both physics and quantum mechanics.... FAIL!

You have successfully outed yourself again for not knowing this is a basic concept taught at the fundamental physics level. The study i was referring to took this one step further as I said before...

I can play this game of letting you embarrass yourself all day Ian.... I got time today...