Radiative and Reactive EM Fields

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Oct 31, 2011.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    Radiative and Reactive EM Fields

    wirebender and I have been having a discussion about fields.

    radiative fields are the simpliest. the particle producing it is shedding energy by emitting a photon in a random direction therefore the field is spherical in shape and the individual photons exist at the same energy level (minus adjustment for expansion of space) until they are absorbed elsewhere.

    reactive fields are much different. they are produced by magnetic or electric potentials that want to transfer force. they do not emit free photons of a specific energy in a necessarily spherical shaped field.

    how many people have a clear idea of how magnetism or electrical force is transfered other than to do the calculations of classic theory? no one or very few. how does the field know exactly the right energy photon to send out in exactly the right direction? are there any stray photons that missed the mark? if more photons were sent out than were absorbed where did that extra energy come from? by all accounts there are no extra photons.

    I cant tell you the answer. it is far more complicated than I would care to learn, perhaps more complicated than I could learn.

    but the extremely simplified version is this. charged particles are surrounded by virtual particles including virtual photons that only exist for time periods defined by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. a very, very short time. these are the photons that go out and find the other charged particles to transfer force with. but how does the virtual photon get to the other charged particle if it doesnt exist long enough to travel there?

    an excellent question, worthy of being yet another facet of quantum weirdness. photons travel at the speed of light. the equations for relativity include a divisor that is c2-speed2. dividing by zero is undefined. you cannot define distance or time relative to the photon. in essence the photon exists along its whole path all the time.

    that is why the virtual photon can go out and react with any available charged particle no matter how far away. once it finds the particle it becomes a real photon and exchanges the force. any unused virtual photons just cease to exist past their expiry date.

    wirebender has mixed up the two types of field. he thinks simple radiative field have the same properties as reactive fields. or something. in any case he thinks radiative photons like those emitted from an excited CO2 molecule can wink out of existence because other radiation is coming from the earth in the opposite direction. other than a simple waveform disturbance at the meeting point both photons carry on as if nothing happened.

    anyways, that is my ultra basic and simplified version of photons as carriers of energy. I would be pleased to describe my take on how electric and magnetic forces can be either attractive or repulsive if any one cares enough to ask.
     
  2. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    Ian, you already lost this discussion on your other thread. The outcome isn't going to change because you started another thread.

    By the way, virtual photons only "exist" within the boundries of atoms. They are theoretical carriers of energy between electrons and protons or neutrons and have no place in a discussion regarding IR radiation. You have missed the boat already Ian and I am afraid that you are standing squarely on a sinking ship.

    Appealing to the "audience" that wirebender has confused anything probably establishes a new low point for you Ian. I gave you math that I agree with in support of my position. To date, you have in no way challenged it with alternative equations other than that gibberish claiming that you can gain additional wattage by adding additional sides to a radiator.

    Sit here and rot Ian, I have proved my point and defended my postion. You remain completey unable to show any error in the math provided to you and your claim that the Stefan-Boltzman equations are "far fetched" when applied to an experiment involving blackbody radiation lands you, as far as I am concerned, squarely in the barking moonbat camp.

    Maybe you, rocks, and konradv can work this all out for yourselves strictly avoiding mathematics that depend on and support the laws of physics. I suggest that the three of you invest your life savings into a power company operating at 106% efficiency made possible by adding sides. Anyone who believes that a heated bar can be further heated by a non heated bar is sure to want on the bandwagon.

    Good luck to you all.
     
  3. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    Spencer's thought experiment is on another thread.

    this thread is about your deranged claim that photons magically disappear.

    and your confusion about types of fields of course. care to lay out your under standing of magnetic and electro fields? care to explain exactly where the photon disappears after it is emitted from the CO2 molecule towards the earth?

    or are you going to refuse to show the proof where you did the math? again, just like you have ducked every time I asked to see it. it doesnt even exist does it? otherwise you would post it.
     
  4. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
     
  5. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    WOW...LOL..

    Damn dude, I am ashamed for you man...
     
  6. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    hey, no need to worry about me. step up and show your wisdom. you have stated your agreement with wirebender so why dont you explain where and how photons disappear before getting to earth after being emitted from CO2.
     
  7. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Why don't you smart guy? oh thats right you can't we already showed this... In fact you can't even argue what he actually says, all you can do is make up shit and claim he said it..

    if you could argue what i posted before you would have then and there, You didn't ran from it like the coward and fake we all know you are now.. You aren't a scientist, a physicist, or even a well read student on the subjects. You didn't know the double-slit experiment, a staple in physical science study, you didn't know what a photon was, you have no idea of what wave-particle duality means in practice, and you are too damn ignorant to know when you aren't fooling anyone anymore..

    So please continue your appeal to the board ego-stroking thread...:lol:
     
  8. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    instead of making up lies about me, why dont you answer the simple and straight forward question I have been asking since wirebender first made up his bizarro land version of physics? where does the photon disappear when it is overwhelmed by the EM field of the earth, whatever that means. is he (you) talking about a radiative field or a reactive field? the CO2 emits a real free photon so I cant see how it can disappear until it is absorbed. reactive photons only interact with charged particles so they cant interact with other photons. yet you guys say CO2 molecules cant send photons down towards the earth. please explain.
     
  9. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Do you realize you have just begged the forum to prove you right? Seriously Ian do you really think anyone cares enough about the true physics involved in this enough to bother with it or you and your childish nonsense?

    Tell me Ian how man physicists in this forum do you expect to come forward and proclaim you brilliant? Of course you can sit here and beg and pretend what our arguments were about all day long and in the end the same trolling idiots who side up to anybody that disagrees with me will come in and kiss your butt for you.. Just like before. And of course you will show even less shame and accept this oldsocks lovin willingly just like before..

    Ian IF you could show you had one tenth the knowledge you claim, you would know all those points I mentioned in my last post.. you would recognize them matter-of-fact and been able to either correct any errors or clarify any points I overlooked in my inexperience. But you did neither of these things, all you did was stomp your foot and pretend the argument was something else.. Just like now...

    you are a fake, an internet phony trying to play a role you have crafted on here.. You know it and I know it.. Your latest attempt to garner support through misdirection to another thread and changing the arguments to add confusion only proves this even more..

    You created this thread to get as far away from the other one as you could before altering it any further. You are busted, your continued claims of higher intellect and knowledge on this subject, all the while offering nothing but googled terms you don't understand and claiming you knew that already.. When tested on your implied vast knowledge you have been shown to be lacking that which would be expected in a High School level Physics class.

    How in the hell did you think you could play physics wiz so long and not even bother to learn anything about it? Did you honestly believe you were so much smarter than everyone else that no one would even question you a little bit? Or where you blinded by your ego and started to believe your own bullshit? I think it was a bit of both..

    Either way I am sorry for you. you pissed away all of it lately.. next time you want to play pretend physicist, read up on the physics first. It's not some thing you can fake or pull off by just claiming you know. Someone will ask eventually..

    You are officially pathetic now...:clap2:
     
  10. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    I havent begged anyone to prove me right. I have been dogging wirebender to prove, or at least explain, his incredible claim that photons magically disappear on their way down to earth from the atmosphere. He claims 'the EM field' did it but he is unwilling to describe the EM field in question, or explain the physical process that destroys the photon, or even identify where the destruction takes place. instead he says he 'proved' it and did the 'math' in some past thread that is his secret. sounds just like climategate scientists when they dont want their work looked at.

    I think your second point was something to the effect that 'I wanted to be proclaimed brilliant'. I dont. I want to be thought of as honest, straight forward and civil. but 'proclaimed brilliant' does have something to do with it. I laughed at wirebender's foolishness for quite a while until some people started praising him for his knowledge! for god's sake Matthew even wanted him to be our champion and go debate Hansen! that's when I made a point of responding to his idiotic claims. I was upset that he had fooled others into believing his bullshit, perhaps because they wanted it to be true. again, more parallels with climate scientists. they can say pretty much anything, no matter how stupid, and expect a substantial portion of people to believe them on authority. I dont want wirebender to be thought of as an authority on this message board even if he is nominally on the same side of the issue as me. he is a kook. but at least he is his own person. you gslack are just his lapdog, barking at any strangers that come by.
     

Share This Page