Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[IanC]

You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons.

We aren't talking about matter...we are talking about photons.

But I agree that photons know where they are going, just not that they are in physical contact. Someone, Feynman perhaps, postulated that inertia is a consequence of changing the destination of photons after they were emitted but before they arrived. Hey its good sci-fi at least.

If you agree that photons experience where they are going from the time they come into existence...that must mean that they experience all possible places they can go unless you are saying that they are aimed from their point of origin....So if they experience all possible places they can go, why would they go towards a warmer body in opposition to the second law?

And again, what is the difference between zero distance and physical contact.

One other thing...I asked toddster and crick but got no answer, and I am really interested in getting someone else thought on this question. If you could see a photon from its point of origin going to some point say, half a light year away, what would you see? Would you see a particle zipping away, or would you see something more like a string instantly stretched between its point of origin and its destination which would allow it to exist at every point between its point of origin and its destination?

You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons.

We aren't talking about matter...we are talking about photons.

But I agree that photons know where they are going, just not that they are in physical contact. Someone, Feynman perhaps, postulated that inertia is a consequence of changing the destination of photons after they were emitted but before they arrived. Hey its good sci-fi at least.

If you agree that photons experience where they are going from the time they come into existence...that must mean that they experience all possible places they can go unless you are saying that they are aimed from their point of origin....So if they experience all possible places they can go, why would they go towards a warmer body in opposition to the second law?

And again, what is the difference between zero distance and physical contact.

One other thing...I asked toddster and crick but got no answer, and I am really interested in getting someone else thought on this question. If you could see a photon from its point of origin going to some point say, half a light year away, what would you see? Would you see a particle zipping away, or would you see something more like a string instantly stretched between its point of origin and its destination which would allow it to exist at every point between its point of origin and its destination?

Perhaps more like a chain, with alternating electro/magnetic cycles. It has to know if it synches up with the target as attractive or repulsive. Radiative photons just go.

ok, so more stupid jc here, so isn't the target also sending photons toward it and they actually meet somewhere in between? That is if all things radiate.

Photons aren't matter. Two photons or a billion can be in the exact same place at the exact same time and they don't know the others are there. It is only when they start interacting with matter that they stop being just a probability wave and condense into something that can be measured.

 

[SSDD]

Photons aren't matter. Two photons or a billion can be in the exact same place at the exact same time and they don't know the others are there. It is only when they start interacting with matter that they stop being just a probability wave and condense into something that can be measured.

Would it be so painful for you to say theoretically? You talk about photons as if you knew they exist and knew exactly what they were doing? Your claim that some burglar alarm worked on virtual photons was patently ridiculous...a device designed explicitly to operate with theoretical particles....really?

 

[IanC]

ok, so more stupid jc here, so isn't the target also sending photons toward it and they actually meet somewhere in between? That is if all things radiate.

They are already there....those photons from the target are moving at the speed of light also.. That's part of why I say that the photon knows what every possible destination is like...they are all zero distance away from each other....I can't see how it is any different from conduction which most people readily agree isn't subject to energy moving uphill from a cooler area to a warmer area.

Conduction intimately involves matter. Read up on it. I don't understand it well enough to make any sort of coherent explanation. It's kind of like a pulse of a group of photons that takes on quasi-matter properties by combining their momentum. It makes little sense to me.

 

[SSDD]

Conduction intimately involves matter. Read up on it. I don't understand it well enough to make any sort of coherent explanation. It's kind of like a pulse of a group of photons that takes on quasi-matter properties by combining their momentum. It makes little sense to me.

How much more intimate can you get than zero distance between bodies?

 

[IanC]

Photons aren't matter. Two photons or a billion can be in the exact same place at the exact same time and they don't know the others are there. It is only when they start interacting with matter that they stop being just a probability wave and condense into something that can be measured.

Would it be so painful for you to say theoretically? You talk about photons as if you knew they exist and knew exactly what they were doing? Your claim that some burglar alarm worked on virtual photons was patently ridiculous...a device designed explicitly to operate with theoretical particles....really?

Hahaha. Read up on electric motors. Or MRI machines. Virtual photons are real....wait, what??? Hahaha

 

[SSDD]

Hahaha. Read up on electric motors. Or MRI machines. Virtual photons are real....wait, what??? Hahaha

Isn't it true that a virtual photon is nothing more than a disturbance in an EM field that remains mostly not understood and the whole virtual particle thing is little more than a place holder till more is understood?

You didn't answer my question about what you think a photon might look like if you could view it from its point of origin to its destination.

 

[SSDD]

Got to go practice....may look in in a few hours.

 

[Wuwei]

I don't think so...in fact, I think you two are one in the same. I didn't think toddster was the sort to employ a sock but it just goes to show you never can tell.

If you think we are the same you are insulting Todd.

They don't "blow up"...you get infinity as an answer which is a perfectly acceptable answer in physics. What do you mean by blow up?

Sorry. Blowup is a math vernacular that means an equation has a zero divisor or converges to zero divided by zero.

But you forgot to pursue your contention that zero distance means contact. What if it does? Where are you trying to lead this?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're even dumber than SSDD.

yes I am, he's way over my head. I'm logical, and you fail logic. And, to the dummy me, you still haven't answered the question. Can we go fifteen more pages or you can simply acknowledge you have no proof?

Does cold make warm warmer.?

Of course not. Put an ice cube in your warm Coke. See for yourself.

well son, my argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the surface. I ask for proof. None is given.

well son, my argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the surface.

Yes, we're all aware of your low IQ.

I ask for proof. None is given.

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why?

Yes, we're all aware of your low IQ.
Well, since you're so much more smarter than me, show me evidence of back radiation, you know where the cold atmosphere pushes IR waves back to the surface. Funny how the internet sources can't seem to provide an experiment. But hey, I'm no scientist and I have a low IQ, but damn if I can figure out why it's cold in the desert at night with CO2 above it. strange.

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why
because it is made of cotton, covers me at night when I'm cold and makes me warm. BTW, mine is 66 degrees before I use it. It isn't made of CO2 so I don't understand the anomaly. Perhaps it's due to my low IQ I bet ya.

Well, since you're so much more smarter than me, show me evidence of back radiation,

Have you ever noticed the coldest nights in winter are nights when the sky is clear?
And that cloudy nights tend to be warmer? That's back radiation.

but damn if I can figure out why it's cold in the desert at night with CO2 above it.

That's the lack of clouds. Glad you understand.

because it is made of cotton, covers me at night when I'm cold and makes me warm.

Something cooler makes you warm? Don't tell SSDD.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ok, so more stupid jc here, so isn't the target also sending photons toward it and they actually meet somewhere in between? That is if all things radiate.

They are already there....those photons from the target are moving at the speed of light also.. That's part of why I say that the photon knows what every possible destination is like...they are all zero distance away from each other....I can't see how it is any different from conduction which most people readily agree isn't subject to energy moving uphill from a cooler area to a warmer area.

That's part of why I say that the photon knows what every possible destination is like

That's why a photon from our sun won't radiate toward a star a million light years away that will go supernova in 1,000,000 years. Because zero distance means a photon can predict the temperature of something in the future. LOL!
It sounds dumber every time you say it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't think so...in fact, I think you two are one in the same. I didn't think toddster was the sort to employ a sock but it just goes to show you never can tell.

If you think we are the same you are insulting Todd.

They don't "blow up"...you get infinity as an answer which is a perfectly acceptable answer in physics. What do you mean by blow up?

Sorry. Blowup is a math vernacular that means an equation has a zero divisor or converges to zero divided by zero.

But you forgot to pursue your contention that zero distance means contact. What if it does? Where are you trying to lead this?

It's related to his smart waves/photons idea. A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.
It's a very epicycle type edifice he's been building.

 

[IanC]

ok, so more stupid jc here, so isn't the target also sending photons toward it and they actually meet somewhere in between? That is if all things radiate.

They are already there....those photons from the target are moving at the speed of light also.. That's part of why I say that the photon knows what every possible destination is like...they are all zero distance away from each other....I can't see how it is any different from conduction which most people readily agree isn't subject to energy moving uphill from a cooler area to a warmer area.

That's part of why I say that the photon knows what every possible destination is like

That's why a photon from our sun won't radiate toward a star a million light years away that will go supernova in 1,000,000 years. Because zero distance means a photon can predict the temperature of something in the future. LOL!
It sounds dumber every time you say it.

Yup. That's why you can't rekindle a fire by pushing the coals together. The photons refuse to be radiated at something hot.

Sarc off/

 

[Wuwei]

A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.

Here is the thinking I don't understand: If GHGs can't backradiate, water would be in the same category. If that's the case, Earth would radiate almost all it's surface thermal energy to space. Under equilibrium where the earth radiation output was the same as the sun radiation input, that would make the earth surface very cold (I read minus 40 degrees C). That would be an interesting question for him to answer. Or maybe he has already conjured up an answer somewhere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.

Here is the thinking I don't understand: If GHGs can't backradiate, water would be in the same category. If that's the case, Earth would radiate almost all it's surface thermal energy to space. Under equilibrium where the earth radiation output was the same as the sun radiation input, that would make the earth surface very cold (I read minus 40 degrees C). That would be an interesting question for him to answer. Or maybe he has already conjured up an answer somewhere.

I'm sure he'll come up with some half-assed reason.

 

[IanC]

A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.

Here is the thinking I don't understand: If GHGs can't backradiate, water would be in the same category. If that's the case, Earth would radiate almost all it's surface thermal energy to space. Under equilibrium where the earth radiation output was the same as the sun radiation input, that would make the earth surface very cold (I read minus 40 degrees C). That would be an interesting question for him to answer. Or maybe he has already conjured up an answer somewhere.

You haven't heard his gravity warms the atmosphere theory yet. Apparently it's been proven. Somewhere.

 

[Wuwei]

A warm body stops radiating if a warmer body moves nearby. Nearby meaning anywhere, apparently.

Here is the thinking I don't understand: If GHGs can't backradiate, water would be in the same category. If that's the case, Earth would radiate almost all it's surface thermal energy to space. Under equilibrium where the earth radiation output was the same as the sun radiation input, that would make the earth surface very cold (I read minus 40 degrees C). That would be an interesting question for him to answer. Or maybe he has already conjured up an answer somewhere.

You haven't heard his gravity warms the atmosphere theory yet. Apparently it's been proven. Somewhere.

Oh damn. I don't want to go through another whacko theory discovered in some blog. If true we will have to have government laws against obesity because that significantly raises the earths mass to higher altitudes.

 

[Wuwei]

Note to SSDD: Here is an example of thermal energy from a cold substance hitting a warmer substance.

The cosmic ray background (CRB) was discovered with a radio telescope. The CRB is a cold 2.725 deg K. Radio telescopes are at ambient outdoor temperatures, averaging 15 deg C. The CRB reflects from the much warmer parabola dish to a ruby maser at the focal point.

This illustrates that thermal energy from a cold substance can strike a much warmer substance and be detected to have done so.

 

[SSDD]

I don't think so...in fact, I think you two are one in the same. I didn't think toddster was the sort to employ a sock but it just goes to show you never can tell.

If you think we are the same you are insulting Todd.

They don't "blow up"...you get infinity as an answer which is a perfectly acceptable answer in physics. What do you mean by blow up?

Sorry. Blowup is a math vernacular that means an equation has a zero divisor or converges to zero divided by zero.

But you forgot to pursue your contention that zero distance means contact. What if it does? Where are you trying to lead this?

If zero distance is the same as physical contact, then there is no conceivable reason that the rules for energy transfer via radiation would be significantly different from the rules for energy transfer via conduction and few people who actually think would suggest that back conduction is possible while many who apparently do thing suspend their thinking to allow for back radiation....delete back radiation and the AGW hoax falls flat on its face where it belongs.

 

[SSDD]

Have you ever noticed the coldest nights in winter are nights when the sky is clear?
And that cloudy nights tend to be warmer? That's back radiation.

No, that is the effect of water vapor actually absorbing and holding energy...it is the only greenhouse gas capable of doing so.

That's the lack of clouds. Glad you understand.{/quote]

Which mark the presence of water vapor...CO2 is not a factor.

Something cooler makes you warm? Don't tell SSDD.

You know good and damned well that the blanket blocks convection and that is the reason the temperature increases under a blanket....why deliberately try to trick someone into believing a thing that you know to be false. Is that where you are at now? No better than crick and rocks trying to trick whoever they can with information they know to be false?

 

[SSDD]

That's why a photon from our sun won't radiate toward a star a million light years away that will go supernova in 1,000,000 years.

Again....meaningless argument. You are still trying to impose your perspective on an entity that does not experience the universe in the same way as you...time and distance are meaningless terms when discussing an entity that experiences neither.

Because zero distance means a photon can predict the temperature of something in the future. LOL!

Zero difference and zero time mean that "future" is a meaningless term.

It sounds dumber every time you say it.

The longer you remain unable to grasp that your perception of time and space don't apply to what a photon experiences the dumber you sound.