Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990

[IanC]

The equation for a charge particle and the equation for gravitational force are the inverse square of the diff.

Photons have no charge.

and the relationship of emf's and gravitational forces follow the square of the distance

good luck with trying to have any meaningful dialogue with wirebender. the guy has his fingers firmly plugged into his ears.

 

[IanC]

have you figured it out yet wirebender?

had the Eureka!!! moment, when it all makes sense?

There is a eureka moment to be had Ian, but you are so afraid of it, that I doubt that you will ever have it.

how do you reconcile in your head the photon from another star hitting your eye basically unchanged with the photon from an EM field that drops to a quarter of the energy when the distance doubles? hahaha, think about it! it will come to you.

The photon that hits your eye from another star is visible light and the wave it is part of has diminshed considerably since it was initially radiated from the star. The photon that diminishes over distance is part of an EM field whether it is visible light or EM radiation. Ian, the photon from a distant star is part of a wave that has dimished considerably from the time it radiated out from that star just as the EM field that reaches the earth from a distance has dimished. The photons that make up both the EM field, and the light wave are the same as when they left. The overall magnitude of the field is what has weakened and if they are made of photons, what do you suppose they might be losing if they are diminishing?

You can stick your head as deep in the sand (or a bodily orifice of your choice) as you like, but you are not going to be able to alter physics by doing it.

more gobbledegook definitions. cue up gslack with a list of definitions for 'light wave', none of which match wirebender's implied meaning, as proof of wirebender's correctness.


wirebender- I keep thinking that if I can just nudge you in the right direction you will get it. lets try another tack. the word skiing is a gerund. 'I like skiing' and 'I am skiing' use the word in different context. virtual photons and real photons are the same thing but have different contexts. an electric or magnetic field is populated by an infinite(?) number of virtual photons that dont become real until they interact with a particle that is capable of interacting with the field. a star or a light bulb sends out a finite number of real photons. the virtual photons are saying 'I like transfering energy', the real photons are saying 'I am transfering energy'.

the photon ejected from an excited CO2 molecule is a real photon carrying energy and will continue to carry that energy until it interacts with matter or even if it just continues to fly through space. the virtual photon only exists as long as the field that it is associated with exists. until it interacts with matter it is only a possibility of a probability.

I continue to hold out hope that you will actually think about the problem and come to a more realistic conclusion than virtual photons annihilating real photons in the absence of matter.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Ian, you are hoping for the impossible.

 

[IanC]

Now Ian, you are hoping for the impossible.

perhaps. but I think I have seen enough clues that wirebender has the mental horsepower to understand a bit deeper than some on this messageboard. its just a matter of getting him to think without his errant misconceptions getting in the way.

you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him think.

 

[wirebender]

[wirebender- I keep thinking that if I can just nudge you in the right direction you will get it. lets try another tack. the word skiing is a gerund. 'I like skiing' and 'I am skiing' use the word in different context. virtual photons and real photons are the same thing but have different contexts. an electric or magnetic field is populated by an infinite(?) number of virtual photons that dont become real until they interact with a particle that is capable of interacting with the field. a star or a light bulb sends out a finite number of real photons. the virtual photons are saying 'I like transfering energy', the real photons are saying 'I am transfering energy'.

Nudging me in your direction Ian, is not a nudge in the right direction. Now you want to bring virtual photons into the argument. How desperate are you Ian? A virtual photon is a theoretical particle that travels beween the electron and the proton of an atom. It is theoretical because in order to do what it does, it must violate the law of conservation of energy. It is a fiction, fabricated to explain what quantum physicists believe they are seeing and the virtual photon provides a solution although there is no evidence that they actually exist.

The virtual photon is among the fictional aspects of science such as matter moving at a rate many times the speed of light during the big bang in order to place the galaxys where they are in the universe today.

So tell me Ian, where are the electrons and protons in the EM field radiated by either the earth or in the EM field radiated by the CO2 molecule?

the photon ejected from an excited CO2 molecule is a real photon carrying energy and will continue to carry that energy until it interacts with matter or even if it just continues to fly through space. the virtual photon only exists as long as the field that it is associated with exists. until it interacts with matter it is only a possibility of a probability.

And the photon ejected from an exicited CO2 moleucle is the smallest possible bit of energy in an EM field which does not require the presence of matter in order to interact with, by addition or subrtraction, other EM fields.

I continue to hold out hope that you will actually think about the problem and come to a more realistic conclusion than virtual photons annihilating real photons in the absence of matter.

If you continue to hold out hope that some day I will be as deliberately obtuse and wrong as you, don't hold your breath.

 

[wirebender]

Now Ian, you are hoping for the impossible.

perhaps. but I think I have seen enough clues that wirebender has the mental horsepower to understand a bit deeper than some on this messageboard. its just a matter of getting him to think without his errant misconceptions getting in the way.

you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him think.

Hey, you have a cheerleader. Congratulations. Now ask him a question that requires some intellectual wattage to answer.

 

[gslack]

Now Ian, you are hoping for the impossible.

perhaps. but I think I have seen enough clues that wirebender has the mental horsepower to understand a bit deeper than some on this messageboard. its just a matter of getting him to think without his errant misconceptions getting in the way.

you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him think.

The more you try and pretend, the more ignorant and desperate you look. Siding up with oldsocks now? Tell me exactly how that is not a pathetic attempt to save face? Give me a break Ian. You screwed up and didn't fully realize what you were arguing against and not only does it show, it also has revealed a great deal about you.

1. Light is electro-magnetic energy.

2. A photon is the smallest measurement of or quantum of an EM field.

3. An electro-magnetic field (EM Field) is made up of Photons.

4. Light has the properties of BOTH a wave and a particle.

You have shown you either do not grasp those 4 principles, or you do now and are trying to be obtuse to cover your previous lack of understanding. Either way your behavior since has been enlightening and I am glad I got to see you this way. Best to know what we are dealing with straight up with no pretenses.

I lack the mathematical abilities and knowledge to dispute wirebenders math on this, I said as much from the start. But rather than calling him wrong, or claiming he made things up, or that Quantum mechanics as it pertains to so-called greenhouse effect is some esoteric study akin to magic, I actually tried to do a little studying on it. At least enough to grasp the basic concepts. That is something you have not done and flat refused to even try and debate this reasonably.

That tells me you are full of shit... I think you are just another internet bullshitter playing a part online. This is your persona and rather than have all that time you spent building it up wasted by not knowing as much as you claim, you will talk as much shit as you can no matter how it makes you look, just so long as your online personality is not wrong about something he is an expert on... Pretty lame Ian...

I am pretty sure you don't understand the wave/particle duality at all, and I would bet you didn't realize the true scope of Quantum mechanics and what it entails as far its effects on the physical realm which we see. The two interact every millisecond of every bit of our existence, and to deny the quantum simply because it wasn't covered in a regular physics class or texts, or simply because you didn't know enough about it, is not logical nor scientific its more like you have your blinders on and will only accept what you already know or at least you can fake that you know.

See Ian I don't understand a lot of it either, but at least I try and learn a bit about it BEFORE I go and make an ass of myself attacking or harassing others. For me when you likened quantum mechanics to an esoteric thing, I smelled BS coming from you. Even with my very limited knowledge of it I knew it was a very real, very much relied upon field which without we wouldn't have microwave ovens, lasers, or so many other things that are apart of our lives now. But you a person of apparently some form of formal physics education dismiss it like its mumbo-jumbo. How in the hell does that work man? Seriously how in the hell does a person educated in physics after Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, et al. still believe quantum mechanics to be the realm of the cracks and wackos? I smell BS like I said before, and unless you work on cattle ranch you are full of it...

 

[wirebender]

The more you try and pretend, the more ignorant and desperate you look. Siding up with oldsocks now? Tell me exactly how that is not a pathetic attempt to save face?

He must be feelin' pretty low if he is scootchin up to rocks for some sugar.

 

[IanC]

this whole physics of EM vectors thing is quite similar to the global warming debate.

wacko theory that goes against common sense, proofs that are hidden behind paywalls (who wants to search for wirebenders original statements where he 'did the math'?) but often reffered to, twisted definitions, defense by ad hom attacks, refusal to answer pointed direct questions, etc. uninformed public swayed by bloviation, confidence of opinion, and rhetoric rather than facts in context.

to a certain extent I am disappointed in myself for not caring enough to make a case to destruct wirebender's crazy theory but there is no way to tie him down on his details anyways.

I dont know enough of the crazy complexities of quantum physics to be 'right', on the other hand I know enough to be certain that wirebender is 'wrong'. photons only interact with matter with the possible exceptions of gravity, expansion of the universe and energy levels commensurate with supercolliders and the Big Bang. CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit IR (doesnt matter which direction actually) therefore it slows energy loss from the earth by basic principle although the quantification is clearly not understood once all the complications are factored in. its really that simple, no amount of bloviation or misdirection from wirebender can change that.

 

[IanC]

an interesting factoid, paradox about photons. because they have integer spin a magnetic field can slightly separate a beam of light into two smaller overlapping circles. but if you separate the light source from the detector and only the actual photons go through the magnetic field no separation happens, if you then put either the light source OR the detector in the magnetic field the separation reappears. photons only react with matter present, they can only be shown to exist with detectors made of matter. wirebender is full of shit when he says photons magically annihilate each other in the absence of matter.

 

[wirebender]

this whole physics of EM vectors thing is quite similar to the global warming debate.

I suppose so except for the fact that EM vectors are real while AGW is not. If by "quite similar" you mean not anything alike, then I guess you could be right.

wacko theory that goes against common sense,

As opposed to the idea that a trace gas within the atmosphere that has no mechanism by which to retain heat can drive the climate? Actually, everything I have said jibes perfectly with common sense if you grasp vectors, and EM fields.

proofs that are hidden behind paywalls

I don't recall ever sending anyone to evidence hidden behind paywalls.

(who wants to search for wirebenders original statements where he 'did the math'?)

You were right in the middle of the conversation but couldn't work up much more than a couple of konradesque comments. You certainly didn't have any comments on the math or physical laws being discussed.

but often reffered to, twisted definitions,

It is you, Ian, who has twisted and tortured definitions beyond recognition. Your latest being virtual photons was a real hoot.

defense by ad hom attacks,

I don't think that I ever attacked you in lieu of an argument but feel free to bring forward an example if you believe there is on.

refusal to answer pointed direct questions,

I believe I have answered every question you asked, no matter how many times you have asked it. If I missed one, feel free to bring it forward.

etc. uninformed public swayed by bloviation, confidence of opinion, and rhetoric rather than facts in context.

And yet, you remain unable to point to any mathematical error on my part or misapplied physical law. You are full of gas Ian and have fallen very low on my Respect-O-Meter.

to a certain extent I am disappointed in myself for not caring enough to make a case to destruct wirebender's crazy theory but there is no way to tie him down on his details anyways.

Riiiiiigggggghhhhhtttttt. You have tried every which way but Sunday to try and tear down my argument and have failed miserably at every turn. You have gone on for dozens of posts trying and failing. That is not the action of someone who doesn't care. At this point, you are failing to save face as badly as you failed to effectively argue against my position.

I dont know enough of the crazy complexities of quantum physics to be 'right', on the other hand I know enough to be certain that wirebender is 'wrong'.

Spoken like a zealot who is operating from a position of faith. And I haven't gone into the complexities of quantum physics Ian. I have stuck to pretty basic physics. The fact that you don't get it tells me that if you ever took physics, you didn't do very well in the subject.

photons only interact with matter with the possible exceptions of gravity, expansion of the universe and energy levels commensurate with supercolliders and the Big Bang.

Sorry, but that is just not right. Again, refer to particle-wave duality. Most phenomena one encounters in EM fields and light are better described assuming the fields to be waves, rather than particles. The only phenomena that is best described by particles is the photo electric effect. Interference, difraction, polarization can't be explained at all assuming that EM fields are particles and reflection and refraction make perfect sense assuming that EM fields are waves. You are stuck on photons and at this point, can only assume that you don't posess enough intellectual wattage to get free of your mistaken beliefs.

CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit IR (doesnt matter which direction actually) therefore it slows energy loss from the earth by basic principle although the quantification is clearly not understood once all the complications are factored in. its really that simple, no amount of bloviation or misdirection from wirebender can change that.

I never suggested that the don't absorb and re emit IR. I stated that they don't re emit IR towards the earth and did the math to prove it. Attacking me because you can't make your case doesn't help you in the least Ian, and seeking some sugar from rocks was just plain pathetic.

 

[wirebender]

an interesting factoid, paradox about photons. because they have integer spin a magnetic field can slightly separate a beam of light into two smaller overlapping circles. but if you separate the light source from the detector and only the actual photons go through the magnetic field no separation happens, if you then put either the light source OR the detector in the magnetic field the separation reappears. photons only react with matter present, they can only be shown to exist with detectors made of matter. wirebender is full of shit when he says photons magically annihilate each other in the absence of matter.

Grasping at straws Ian. How much further will you drag your intellect through the gutter in an effort to salvage your loss?

You have yet to state what becomes of the photons when an EM field or visible light wave diminishes Ian. What do you suppose is diminishing. What is the smallest bit of energy within an EM field? It is you who is dodging pointed questions Ian, not me.

 

[gslack]

this whole physics of EM vectors thing is quite similar to the global warming debate.

wacko theory that goes against common sense, proofs that are hidden behind paywalls (who wants to search for wirebenders original statements where he 'did the math'?) but often reffered to, twisted definitions, defense by ad hom attacks, refusal to answer pointed direct questions, etc. uninformed public swayed by bloviation, confidence of opinion, and rhetoric rather than facts in context.

to a certain extent I am disappointed in myself for not caring enough to make a case to destruct wirebender's crazy theory but there is no way to tie him down on his details anyways.

I dont know enough of the crazy complexities of quantum physics to be 'right', on the other hand I know enough to be certain that wirebender is 'wrong'. photons only interact with matter with the possible exceptions of gravity, expansion of the universe and energy levels commensurate with supercolliders and the Big Bang. CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit IR (doesnt matter which direction actually) therefore it slows energy loss from the earth by basic principle although the quantification is clearly not understood once all the complications are factored in. its really that simple, no amount of bloviation or misdirection from wirebender can change that.

Stop posturing already.. You are full of it Ian.. This part alone tells me..

"photons only interact with matter with the possible exceptions of gravity, expansion of the universe and energy levels commensurate with supercolliders and the Big Bang."

The "possible exception of gravity" Really Ian possibly? Thats all you're gonna give? Ian, if ya knew half what ya claim you would in the very least know that even light cannot escape a Black Hole. I learned that in High school. SO YES GRAVITY.. Not a possibility but a definitely in extreme instances of gravitational pull like those in a Black Hole or a singularity even light (made up of EM Radiation which a photon is the smallest unit of EM Radiation, which is what makes an EM Field) cannot escape them.

Now Ian if you want to debate the merits of Quantum physics that's another discussion. One that before you have, you should know that without it we couldn't understand superconductors, semiconductors, nuclear and chemical reactions and so many more things. Regular physics could not explain those processes or systems at all. The very reason Quantum Theory was explored was to explain areas where physics could not.

But then you go on and call it bunk, after all you know better...

 

[gslack]

an interesting factoid, paradox about photons. because they have integer spin a magnetic field can slightly separate a beam of light into two smaller overlapping circles. but if you separate the light source from the detector and only the actual photons go through the magnetic field no separation happens, if you then put either the light source OR the detector in the magnetic field the separation reappears. photons only react with matter present, they can only be shown to exist with detectors made of matter. wirebender is full of shit when he says photons magically annihilate each other in the absence of matter.

Ian, how do they get that integer spin? An EM Field? You seriously just argued against something you are now showing evidence for... IF a magnetic field can as you put it "slightly separate a beam of light" what is the beam of light made of? Photons you got it! So if the magnetic field does it, WTH are you crying about?

And will you stop with the BS now? Seriously this statement "photons only react with matter present,.." Its a silly point that was not even disputed by anyone but you.. A CO2 molecule is matter, so is a cloud, and the damn air we breath is matter. Hell man saying a photon only reacts with matter present is a save-ass statement. Matter is gas, liquid or solid. In the vacuum of space there is a lot of matter, different kinds of it. Our planet? Its matter.. So saying a photon only reacts in the presence of matter is like saying the sun is hot.

Ian seriously....

 

[IanC]

an interesting factoid, paradox about photons. because they have integer spin a magnetic field can slightly separate a beam of light into two smaller overlapping circles. but if you separate the light source from the detector and only the actual photons go through the magnetic field no separation happens, if you then put either the light source OR the detector in the magnetic field the separation reappears. photons only react with matter present, they can only be shown to exist with detectors made of matter. wirebender is full of shit when he says photons magically annihilate each other in the absence of matter.

Grasping at straws Ian. How much further will you drag your intellect through the gutter in an effort to salvage your loss?

You have yet to state what becomes of the photons when an EM field or visible light wave diminishes Ian. What do you suppose is diminishing. What is the smallest bit of energy within an EM field? It is you who is dodging pointed questions Ian, not me.

what is diminishing? a radiating source like a star, flashlight or CO2 molecule is losing intensity. the finite number of real photons is spread out over four times as large an area every time you double the distance. a magnetic or electric field doesnt necessarily have a spherical shape and is made up of virtual photons that only exist as long as the field exists and the photons only become real when they encounter a particle to pass their energy to.

 

[IanC]

an interesting factoid, paradox about photons. because they have integer spin a magnetic field can slightly separate a beam of light into two smaller overlapping circles. but if you separate the light source from the detector and only the actual photons go through the magnetic field no separation happens, if you then put either the light source OR the detector in the magnetic field the separation reappears. photons only react with matter present, they can only be shown to exist with detectors made of matter. wirebender is full of shit when he says photons magically annihilate each other in the absence of matter.

Ian, how do they get that integer spin? An EM Field? You seriously just argued against something you are now showing evidence for... IF a magnetic field can as you put it "slightly separate a beam of light" what is the beam of light made of? Photons you got it! So if the magnetic field does it, WTH are you crying about?

And will you stop with the BS now? Seriously this statement "photons only react with matter present,.." Its a silly point that was not even disputed by anyone but you.. A CO2 molecule is matter, so is a cloud, and the damn air we breath is matter. Hell man saying a photon only reacts with matter present is a save-ass statement. Matter is gas, liquid or solid. In the vacuum of space there is a lot of matter, different kinds of it. Our planet? Its matter.. So saying a photon only reacts in the presence of matter is like saying the sun is hot.

Ian seriously....

spin is just a quality of photons, like the charge on an electron. the fact that a magnetic field only affects photons at the source of the light or at the detector end and NOT in the middle where only photons were present leads me to believe that changes to photons only happen in the presence of matter, perhaps even the gravity and space expansion effects are mediated by matter. I dont know but no one else does either because you cant detect photons without matter.

wirebender is the one who said photons could disappear in the absence of matter. that is why I have been involved in this long running dispute. he has said many crazy things, eg the light of a brighter sun cancels out the light of a lesser sun and only the light from the brighter sun goes through. personally I think wirebender has jumbled up different aspects of radiation and electric fields into a confused personal version of physics.

 

[IanC]

Now Ian, you are hoping for the impossible.

perhaps. but I think I have seen enough clues that wirebender has the mental horsepower to understand a bit deeper than some on this messageboard. its just a matter of getting him to think without his errant misconceptions getting in the way.

you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him think.

The more you try and pretend, the more ignorant and desperate you look. Siding up with oldsocks now? Tell me exactly how that is not a pathetic attempt to save face? Give me a break Ian. You screwed up and didn't fully realize what you were arguing against and not only does it show, it also has revealed a great deal about you.

1. Light is electro-magnetic energy.

2. A photon is the smallest measurement of or quantum of an EM field.

3. An electro-magnetic field (EM Field) is made up of Photons.

4. Light has the properties of BOTH a wave and a particle.

You have shown you either do not grasp those 4 principles, or you do now and are trying to be obtuse to cover your previous lack of understanding. Either way your behavior since has been enlightening and I am glad I got to see you this way. Best to know what we are dealing with straight up with no pretenses.

I lack the mathematical abilities and knowledge to dispute wirebenders math on this, I said as much from the start. But rather than calling him wrong, or claiming he made things up, or that Quantum mechanics as it pertains to so-called greenhouse effect is some esoteric study akin to magic, I actually tried to do a little studying on it. At least enough to grasp the basic concepts. That is something you have not done and flat refused to even try and debate this reasonably.

That tells me you are full of shit... I think you are just another internet bullshitter playing a part online. This is your persona and rather than have all that time you spent building it up wasted by not knowing as much as you claim, you will talk as much shit as you can no matter how it makes you look, just so long as your online personality is not wrong about something he is an expert on... Pretty lame Ian...

I am pretty sure you don't understand the wave/particle duality at all, and I would bet you didn't realize the true scope of Quantum mechanics and what it entails as far its effects on the physical realm which we see. The two interact every millisecond of every bit of our existence, and to deny the quantum simply because it wasn't covered in a regular physics class or texts, or simply because you didn't know enough about it, is not logical nor scientific its more like you have your blinders on and will only accept what you already know or at least you can fake that you know.

See Ian I don't understand a lot of it either, but at least I try and learn a bit about it BEFORE I go and make an ass of myself attacking or harassing others. For me when you likened quantum mechanics to an esoteric thing, I smelled BS coming from you. Even with my very limited knowledge of it I knew it was a very real, very much relied upon field which without we wouldn't have microwave ovens, lasers, or so many other things that are apart of our lives now. But you a person of apparently some form of formal physics education dismiss it like its mumbo-jumbo. How in the hell does that work man? Seriously how in the hell does a person educated in physics after Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, et al. still believe quantum mechanics to be the realm of the cracks and wackos? I smell BS like I said before, and unless you work on cattle ranch you are full of it...

even many decades past my last physics course I understand light and quantum effects better than you and wirebender.

and my manners are better too.

 

[wirebender]

a magnetic or electric field doesnt necessarily have a spherical shape and is made up of virtual photons that only exist as long as the field exists and the photons only become real when they encounter a particle to pass their energy to.

Here Ian, from the physics department at Oxford University.

Virtual photons

Virtual photons have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Virtual photons are the way physicists explain energy transfer from an electron to a ptoton or a neutron.

And Ian, individual vectors don't "spread" out with distance as you have claimed. The energy travelling along any given vector diminishes over distance but the vector itself retains the original dimension it had at its point of origin.

At this point, you have grown boring. When you come up with something that hasn't already been shot down, let me know.

 

[IanC]

you are simply mangling definitions again. there are virtual photons mediating proton-electron interaction but that is not what we are specifically talking about. there are other virtual photons that mediate magnetic or electric field energy exchangewhich IS what we are talking about.

you seem to think a source of EMR like a light bulb gives out an infinite amount of photons but it doesnt, nor does a star or an excited CO2 molecule. intensity is just the amount of photons per area, which declines by the inverse square law for distance.

 

[IanC]

wirebender has taken some of the characteristics of magnetic/electric fields and inappropriately apllied them to the simple case of radiation. a light bulb emitting a photon is a complete event. the tranfer of energy in a E orM field needs to have an interacting particle present to complete the event and turn the virtual photon into a real photon. if there are no interacting particles the field is still there but no energy is exchanged.

photons do not interact with each other. the wave forms may add or subtract at a specific position if you put a detector at that point but otherwise they continue along their paths exactly as before. photons cannot annihilate each other.